Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For Derbyshire, West, in the room of Aidan Merivale Crawley, Esquire, M.B.E. (Manor of Northstead).—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

BILLS PRESENTED

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE

Bill to continue certain expiring laws, presented by Mr. Harold Lever; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 5.]

TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND)

Bill to amend the law in Scotland relating to the superannuation and other benefits payable to or in respect of teachers and certain other persons employed in connection with the provision of educational services, and for connected purposes, presented by Mr. Ross; supported by Mr. Bruce Millan, and Mr. Harold Lever; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 6.]

COUNTRYSIDE

Bill to enlarge the functions of the Commission established under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, to confer new powers on local authorities and other bodies for the benefit of those resorting to the countryside and to make other provision for the matters dealt with in the Act of 1949 and generally as respects the countryside, and to amend the law about trees and woodlands and footpaths and bridleways, presented by Mr. Anthony Greenwood; supported by Mr. Ross, Mr. Gordon Walker, Mr. Fred Peart, Mrs. Barbara

Castle, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Niall Mac-Dermot, Mr. Harold Lever, Mr. James MacColl, and Mr. Arthur Skeffington; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 1.]

TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS

Bill to amend the law relating to trustee savings banks, presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; supported by Mr. John Diamond, and Mr. Harold Lever; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 3.]

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)

Bill to make further provision with respect to the welfare of livestock; to provide for additional payments for certain tenants of agricultural holdings who receive compensation for disturbance in respect of their holdings or whose land is acquired or taken possession of compulsorily or whose landlords resume possession of the land for non-agricultural purposes; to make further provision for England and Wales with respect to drainage charges, drainage rates and grants and advances to drainage authorities; to provide for payments in respect of bacon and grants in respect of break crops and the supply of water to certain buildings; to amend section 3 of the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926, section 53(2) of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1948, section 1 of the Agricultural and Forestry Associations Act 1962 and the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Fred Peart; supported by Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Ross, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Harold Lever, Mr. James Hoy, and Mr. John Mackie; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 4.]

FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

Bill to increase family allowances under the Family Allowances Act 1965 and make related adjustments of certain benefits under the National Insurance Act 1965 or the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965; to make further


provision as to the time at which a person ceases to be a child within the meaning of those Acts, and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mrs. Judith Hart supported by Mr. Stewart, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Ross, Mr. Gordon Walker, Mr. Ray Gunter, Mr. Hughes, Mr. John Diamond, Mr. Norman Pentland, and Mr. Charles Loughlin; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 2.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

2.37 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): I beg to move,
That (1) Standing Order No. 5 (Precedence of government business) shall have effect for this Session with the following modifications, namely:—
In paragraph (2) the word 'sixteen" shall be substituted for the word "ten" in line 6; in paragraph (3) the word "ninth" shall be substituted for the word "seventh" in line 8; and in paragraph (5) the word "four" shall he substituted for the word "ten" in line 27;
(2) Public Bills other than Government Bills shall have precedence over Government Business on 8th and 15th December, 26th January, 2nd 9th 16th and 23rd February, 1st. 22nd and 29th March, 5th and 26th April, and 3rd, 10th, 17th and 24th May;
(3) private Members' Notices of Motions shall have precedence over Government Business on 24th November, 1st December and 8th and 15th March, and ballots for these Notices shall be held after Questions on 8th and 15th November, the 21st and 28th February respectively;
(4) on Monday 18th December, Monday 5th February, Monday 29th April, and Monday 1st July, private Members' Notices of Motions shall have precedence until Seven o'clock, and ballots for these Notices shall be held after Questions on Monday 4th December, Tuesday 23rd January, Wednesday 10th April, and Tuesday 18th June, respectively;
(5) no Notice of Motion shall be handed in for any of the days on which private Members' Notices have precedence under this Order in anticipation of the ballot for that day.
It might have been more for the convenience of the House if we had considered this Motion in connection with the other procedure Motions which we are to discuss in due course, but it is a tradition of the House that we should

today, before continuing our debate on the Government's legislative programme, consider the Motion dealing with private Members' time. I think this shows a proper sense of priorities, because the House is rightly jealous to preserve the rights of private Members against encroachment by the Executive. I am therefore glad to assure the House that this Motion recommends that the time usually given to private Members should be kept faithfully in the forthcoming Session.
We are allocating 20 Fridays and four half days—that is, 22 days in all. Indeed, the only important change which I should like to point out is our proposal that we should alter the proportion of time given to Motions and the proportion given to private Members' legislation. I suggest that private Members should have 16 Bill days and only four Motion days during the Session. Of the 16 Bill days, we suggest that eight should be devoted to Second Readings and eight to the remaining stages of Bills. But, in addition, private Members will have their tradiditional seven days of what I might call Motion discussion—that is, four days for Adjournments and three days on the Consolidated Fund.
This is an experimental proposal in the sense that I had to judge, as far as I could, the feeling of the House about the relative importance of the work which private Members do on Motions and the work which they do on legislation. I hope that I was right in gauging that there was a general view that the time spent on legislation could be increased against the time spent on Motions. I should like to mention one figure concerning last Session. Of the 107 Private Members' Bills introduced, 78 were published—and they were the serious ones—and of those only 23 received the Royal Assent. I am making a modest increase in the chances of private Members' legislation getting through. I am looking forward to our debate on procedure, and I hope that in this Session there will be more opportunities for topical debates as a result of our proposals about Standing Order No. 9.
I hope that, with these assurances, the Motion will commend itself to the House.

2.40 p.m.

Mr. James Ramsden: We would all agree with the Leader of the House that this is an important Motion.


We also agree with what he said when he prefaced his remarks by saying that it might have been convenient had it been possible to discuss it in the context of his contemplated changes in procedure in the general debate which we understand is shortly to take place. We understand the reasons why this is not possible and why the Leader of the House has had to move the Motion today.
None the less it puts those who have views about the merits of this Motion in a rather difficult position, because some of us feel that it is something worth debating but we do not want to detain the House at great length from the main subject of today's debate. I shall be very brief in mentioning one or two reservations I have about this Motion, and I hope that will be accounted to me for merit and that I may be fortunate in having an opportunity in the general debate to develop the theme more fully.
I have reservations about this Motion because it alters the balance of time between legislation and the discussion of Motions by private Members. I understand that the days for legislation will be increased by six and the number of those for Motions will be correspondingly diminished. My first reservation may possib12, seem to some of my hon. Friends rather "square" and old-fashioned, but it is a feeling which I genuinely hold. It is that already in this House we have quite enough time for debating legislation. There is quite enough legislation coming forward—[HON. MEMBERS: Too much."]—the bulk of it from the Government, but also from private Members. If the balance could be shifted, I would rather see it shifted the other way. For that reason I am sorry that we are to have more time devoted to legislation and less time to the discussion of Private Members' Motions.
My second reservation follows from the first and arises from our experience of the Government's handling of private Members' legislation during the last Session. Perhaps I may put it like this. I thing this is a proposition which will be accepted by both sides of the House, that there are certain subjects which are apt for legislation by private Members——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot allow in discussion on this procedural Motion an inquest on what happened last Session.

Mr. Ramsden: It was not my intention so to do, Mr. Speaker. I think it will be apparent from my argument, which I shall bring to a very rapid conclusion, that I am addressing my remarks to the subject matter of this Motion and the balance of time between Motions and legislation. If we have more time devoted to legislation it will follow that more of those Bills will be brought forward about which the House may take the view—as certainly many hon. Members did about controversial legislation of this kind last Session—that they would be more appropriately handled and dealt with as Government Bills than as Private Members' Bills. We shall get more of those Bills coming forward. We shall get more of the type of Bill which is really a Government Bill, both in its subject matter and its handling, but which masquerades as a Private Member's Bill.
I view this proposal with reservation for that reason. The Leader of the House may tell us that the Ballot which I understand will take place next week is the safeguard; that the Ballot ensures fairness between one hon. Member and another. But again, in view of the selective treatment of Private Members' Bills by the Government last Session, one must ask oneself whether that is still so. The screening process of the Ballot, the way in which the Ballot operates to preserve the long-standing practice of this House of absolute fairness between one private Member and another, was to a certain extent prejudiced by things which the Government did last Session. I shall not say more, Mr. Speaker, as this obviously is an argument which should be developed at greater length, but I have reservations about this proposal and, if my hon. Friends agree, I should be quite happy to go into the Lobby against it.

2.45 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: Unlike the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden), I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House because I think he has judged the feeling of the House rightly. We are a legislature and there are many subjects upon which it is appropriate for a private Member to legislate, as one Opposition Member did notably in the last Session, rather than for the Government or the Opposition of the day to do so, but I ask my right hon. Friend to look a little


further into this Standing Order which he is now proposing to amend, because it seems that there are some things which are wrong.
It is no good my right hon. Friend saying that we want more time to discuss legislation by private Members—which I agree with and I think the House will agree with. If, for example, no assistance in drafting a Bill is given to the hon. Member who is successful in the Ballot, it may be that it becomes a waste of time for the House. Secondly, there is the type of Bill mentioned by the right hon. Member for Harrogate which the Whips have fathered on to someone who is successful in the Ballot. This could also be a waste of time for us if it comes from the Opposition. If it is an Opposition Front Bench Bill it can be a waste of time of the House as legislation, however good it may be as a political demonstration. There are also many Government Bills on small technical subjects that ought to be Government Bills. Now that we have Second Reading Committees provided, so that the Government can put them through without wasting the time of the House, that procedure ought to be used.
We should look at paragraph (4) of the Standing Order, which relates to the Ballot. It seems that one way to cure this is simply to say that the Ballot should consist of hon. Members who have already published Bills, not of hon. Members who have no Bill in mind. Subject to that, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on increasing the time for private Members' legislation. I do not think, however, that this increase will have the effect which my right hon. Friend desires unless he looks a little further into Private Members' Bill procedure.

2.48 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I am always rather alarmed when the Leader of the House uses the word "experimental", because I think he is an extremely bad experimenter. One can argue the fors and againsts of a new proposal but it is tremendously important that we should not commit ourselves absolutely on a matter of this kind. I am full of foreboding because I have no confidence in the right hon. Gentle-

man's judgment as to what the House might or might not do or might like to do and what it will be prevented from doing, because this, of course, does not deal with the encroachment of the Executive on to the rights of back benchers.
I should like to ask one question. The right hon. Gentleman said nothing in regard to this new arrangement about some of his experiments which have already been blown sky high. What has happened to the Ten Minute Rule? I should like to know about that, and equally may all hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss the whole of procedure on this Motion.

2.49 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I too have doubts about the change in emphasis between Bills and Motions, for two reasons which I shall state very shortly because I think the House wants to get on to other business. The first is that almost every Bill is a proposal to reduce personal freedom. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Inevitably almost every legislative proposal must be a proposal to impose compulsion in some field or other. I say "almost", because some Bills are purely repealing Measures. Anything which is not a purely repealing Measure must encroach, whether desirably or not, upon the freedom of the individual. The volume of legislation which is going through, both Government and Private Members' Bills, gives cause for concern about the accumulation of prescription at present.
The second reason why I have these doubts is that I have never been happy about Friday legislation. I can claim to have been present on many Fridays, either promoting my own Bills or opposing somebody else's, so I have some experience in this matter. The kinds of Bills which commend themselves to private Members are usually Bills about very important subjects, often subjects which are so important that the Executive does not like to get mixed up in them. Last Session there were two such Measures, those on abortion and homosexuality, about which I would not grumble, because there is no doubt that


those Measures had the full attention of the House. In such cases such procedure is admirable.
The real trouble about Private Members' Bills on Fridays over the years has been that almost no one comes here, and matters of the utmost significance are dealt with by a trivial number of Members. This is bad. Until the House is willing to accept the individual responsibility of the individual Member to come here and state his views, to support or to oppose, and to vote, obstruction is the only safeguard against foolish legislation on Fridays. Because I feel this way, I must oppose for the moment this shift from Motions to Bills as suggested by the Leader of the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that 30 right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part in the debate that is ahead of us.

2.52 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: The doubts which might be in the minds of hon. Members about the suggested shift of emphasis away from the time devoted to Private Members' Motions to the time devoted to Private Members' Bills should not be influenced by some of the tendentious statements made by hon. Members opposite. The very useful legislation which originated in Private Members' Bills last Session is one thing. There is broad support for the proposition that that legislation was very important. However, if we could get away from prejudicial statements there is still a case to be discussed.
I deplore this very big shift away from the time allotted to Private Members' Motions to Private Members' Bills. There is a place for both, but the case is by no means proved that it is right to make this big shift. Hon. Members who have been in the House for some time know that often a matter needs a first airing. This is much better done on a Private Member's Motion than on a Private Member's Bill. Often, when there has been public discussion and books and articles have been published on a subject, Parliament wants to have a first go at the subject. It is much more provocative of new thought on both sides of the House if the House is invited to discuss a

Motion rather than the precise and often rigid terms of a Bill.
I should like my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to bear in mind that there is this point of view, which is represented both among my right hon. and hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite. He should see how this works out and at any rate not go further. If the point of view I have expressed receives more than growing support, I suggest that he return some of the time to be allocated to Private Members' Bills to Private Members' Motions again.

2.55 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I support the Motion. In the old days it was much easier for a Private Member to get legislation on to the Statute Book than it has been in recent years. One would think from listening to hon. Members on this side that the small increase which the Leader of the House proposes is wholly without precedent. During the 19th century Private Members introduced an enormous variety of Bills extending over a much wider range of subjects than is possible today. For example, my grandfather, who was in the House at the end of the 19th century, had no fewer than 35 Bills placed on the Statute Book during his time as a Member of Parliament.
In opposition to the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), who said that Private Members' legislation always restricts personal freedom, I would inform the House that one of the Bills introduced by my grandfather was the Bank Holidays Bill, which greatly widened personal freedom in those days. Another was the Shops Bill, which reduced the number of hours which shop workers had to endure in those days. It is absolutely untrue to suggest that legislation necessarily restricts personal freedom. I have tried for some time to introduce a Bill to allow the wives of absent voters to vote as their husbands can in Parliamentary elections. I remember the hon. and learned Gentleman coming here on Friday after Friday and shouting "Object" behind his hand so that people did not know who was responsible. [HON. MEMBERS:"Oh!"]

Mr. Ronald Bell: I have opposed many Bills in my time, but not that one.

Mr. Lubbock: If it was not that one, it was one of the many others. [HON. MEMBERS: "Really."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This duel might continue on some Friday on a private Member's day.

Mr. Lubbock: It is all very well to shout "Really", but the hon. and learned Gentleman's reputation in this respect is well known.
The right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) said that there was quite enough legislation already. There may be quite enough bad legislation coming from the Government, but that is no reason to suggest that private Members are not capable of bringing forward very good Bills. In the few weeks running up to the beginning of the new Session the right hon. Gentleman has probably had, as I have, many letters from reputable organisations suggesting minor changes and amendments to the law which everybody on both sides of the House would like to see introduced but which we know will not in practice find a place in the Government's programme, which is already full of major legislation. If we are not to have this additional time for private Members to introduce Bills, those matters will be delayed until some indefinite time in the future. Many useful Bills were lost in the last Session. The Employment Agencies Bill, sponsored by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), a Bill which I know is to be reintroduced this Session, is one example.
The Leader of the House has done a good job in suggesting that we extend the number of days available for legislation as opposed to Motions. This is a tendency which I should like to see extended still further, because I think that many Motions are a waste of time, whereas private Members' legislation frequently has a very useful and practical result.

2.58 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I want the Leader of the House to know that he has not bamboozled anybody with his soothing words about the Government's concern for back benchers. In fact, the Motion proposes that precisely the same amount of time be allotted to back benchers in future as they have had before. The Leader of the House uttered some soothing words as though he were

making a generous concession and recognising the importance of back benchers. Leaders of the House, from whatever party they come, never do that. They are concerned with pushing through Government legislation. If back benchers fall by the wayside, that is a common state. This Leader of the House is no different from others.
We should use an opportunity such as this to ask for more time to be given to back benchers. I really mean more time, not merely juggling with the headings under which time is allocated to them. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) was right. We should not erode the influence which can be brought to bear by Private Members' Motions. If the extra legislative time available to back benchers had been added to the overall amount of time available to them, there would have been some point in the Government's claiming that they were taking into account the importance of back benchers. But merely rearranging the time does not do that. Indeed, we have the experience of the last Session which I think one ought to produce as evidence in support of one's point of view today. It looks as though, looking at the last Session, the Government are using what should really be Private Members' time to get through business which ought to be done in Government time. In that sense it may well be cutting down the genuine back-bench contribution to the work of getting the legislation through Parliament.
Nor can it be denied what my hon. and learned Friend said about there being no particular merit in new Bills. Not all new Bills are good ones. By and large, his statement that new Bills are generally restrictive of freedom is right. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) tried to justify the extension of Bills as being a way of increasing freedom. He said that his grandfather introduced 35 Bills. He scraped the bottom of the barrel and could find only two out of those 35 which have given anything like freedom to the people. If there are 35 Bills restricting freedom, balanced by only two giving more freedom, then I think the point of view expressed by the hon. Member for Penistone has some point in it.
May I take this occasion to plead with the Leader of the House to try hard to


give back benchers more time? I think we are all very concerned at the fact that all of the power is on the Treasury Bench, whichever Government may be in power. Parliament's significance is fading away and it looks as though we are now completely in the hands of the people on the Treasury Bench. It looks as though the people on the Treasury Bench are in the hands of the Prime Minister, so that we are getting to a Presidential system. We ought to heed the warning. I have been in this House for a matter of only 18 years, but in that time one has seen how the significance and power of Parliament as a whole have been weakened, whilst the power and the dictatorship of the Treasury Bench have become stronger.
I say to the Leader of the House: not only be soothing in your words about wanting to strengthen back benchers, but let some of your actions show in practice that you intend to try to do this.

3.3 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: The House sometimes has cause to be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House for reminding us that the word "experiment" encompasses the possibility of failure, a fact which the Minister of Transport has never remembered.
On this occasion before we condemn this experiment as necessarily being a failure, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to explain why it has been necessary for him to cast this Motion precisely in this way. As my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) pointed out, we are getting neither more nor less private Members' time. If the House were required to be satisfied that there had been no encroachment upon our time, a Motion setting out the time as we have it would have been enough. Was it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to introduce a second Motion setting out how the time should be divided, to be taken with the other Motion, in such a way that we could have debated it at a more convenient time? The right hon. Gentleman may tell me that this is not so. He may plead tradition in his defence. But if he wants to become known as an innovator in the House, this seems to me to be an innovation which he ought to support.
We are holding up proceedings by a prolonged debate now, but this issue is important. We are seeing, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) has reminded us, an encroachment on private Members' time with business which is properly Government business. Many Members would like to debate the merits of this subject. The right hon. Gentleman would have got this Motion through without any difficulty if he had simply increased the amount of private Members' time which he makes available both for Motions and for Bills. I suggest that he should withdraw this Motion now and table another in which he reduces the amount of time which the Government propose to take up and gives private Members more time for legislation which we all want to see brought forward.

3.5 p.m.

Mr. Donald Chapman: I hope very much that we shall support my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on this occasion for a reason which he mentioned briefly but which has not been raised in any of the speeches from the back benches.
My right hon. Friend mentioned that he would like to have been able to move this Motion in the context of his general proposals for reform. When he said that, he mentioned proposals for the alteration of Standing Order No. 9. I have no official knowledge of what those proposals are, but we are all pretty clear that he must be referring to the proposals of the Select Committee on Procedure relating to Standing Order No. 9. If my right hon. Friend is going to carry out those proposals—and I think we all hope he will—this will mean something like six extra half-days per year for back-bench Private Members' Motions. It is in the total context of that consideration that I hope we shall look at the proposals which he is putting before us today.
If the proposals of the Select Committee on Procedure are carried out, there will be some extra private Members' time and it is going to be— [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend referred to this when he introduced this Motion, clearly hinting that he was going to deal with the proposals of the Select Committee in this respect. He did not say so,


but I hope that we can provoke him a little further.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot go into a detailed discussion of any proposed reform.

Mr. Chapman: No, Mr. Speaker. I was provoked by interruptions from the other side of the House.
We should look at this in the general context of the fact that we expect there

to be an increase in private Members' time for Motions under Standing Order No. 9. It is within that context that I believe my right hon. Friend's present proposals shifting the balance in the other time are absolutely reasonable and ought to commend themselves to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 79.

Division No. 1.]
AYES
[3.10 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ford, Ben
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Allen, Scholefield
Forrester, John
Moyle, Roland


Anderson, Donald
Fowler, Gerry
Murray, Albert


Archer, Peter
Galpern, Sir Myer
Oakes, Gordon


Ashley, Jack
Gregory, Arnold
O'Malley, Brian


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Oram, Albert E.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Orbach, Maurice


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hamling, William
Paget, R. T.


Barnett, Joel
Harper, Joseph
Palmer, Arthur


Beaney, Alan
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bence, Cyril
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Haseldine, Norman
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Bidwell, Sydney
Heffer, Eric S.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Blackburn, F.
Hooley, Frank
Pentland, Norman


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hooson, Emlyn
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Boston, Terence
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Probert, Arthur


Brooks, Edwin
Hoy, James
Rankin, John


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Robinson, Rt.Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c' as)


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roebuck, Roy


Brown, R, W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Buchan, Norman
Hynd, John
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Cant, R. B.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Sheldon, Robert


Carmichael, Neil
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Chapman, Donald
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Coe, Denis
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N.E.)


Coleman, Donald
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Craddock, George (Bradford, s.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Judd, Frank
Slater, Joseph


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kelley, Richard
Spriggs, Leslie


Dalyell, Tam
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Lawson, George
Stonehouse, John


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lomas, Kenneth
Swain, Thomas


Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Lubbock, Erie
Symonds, J. B.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
McBride, Neil
Tinn, James


Delargy, Hugh
Macdonald, A, H.
Tomney, Frank


Dewar, Donald
McGuire, Michael
Urwin, T. W.


Dickens, James
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dunwoody, Mrs, Gwyneth (Exeter)
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Wallace, George


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Eadie, Alex
Mackie, John
Weitzman, David


Edelman, Maurice
Mackintosh, John P.
Wilkins, W. A.


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Maclennan, Robert
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Ellis, John
Manuel, Archie
Winnick, David


English, Michael
Mapp, Charles
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Ensor, David
Marquand, David
woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Mason, Roy
Woof, Robert


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Maxwell, Robert
Yates, Victor


Faulds, Andrew
Mikardo, Ian



Finch, Harold
Millan, Bruce
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Mr. William Howie and Mr. Eric G. Varley.


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Moonman, Eric



Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Hawkins, Paul
Onslow, Cranley


Balniel, Lord
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hiley, Joseph
Pearson, sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Peyton, John


Biffen, John
Hunt, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
Iremonger, T. L.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Campbell, Gordon
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Sharples, Richard


Channon, H. P. G.
Kitson, Timothy
Sinclair, Sir George


Chichester-Clark, R.
Lambton, Viscount
Stodart, Anthony


Cordle, John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Tapsell, Peter


Crowder, F. P.
Lloyd, Rt.Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Tilney, John


Currie, G. B. H.
Longden, Gilbert
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Loveys, W. H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Dance, James
MacArthur, Ian
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Marten, Neil
Wall, Patrick


Doughty, Charles
Maude, Angus
Walters, Dennis


Drayson, G. B.
Mawby, Ray
Ward, Dame Irene


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Webster, David


Gibson-Watt, David
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gower, Raymond
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wright. Esmond


Grieve, Percy
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles



Hall, John (Wycombe)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Murton, Oscar
Mr. James Ramsden and Mr. Ronald Bell.


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Neave, Airey



Hastings, Stephen
Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Resolved,
That (1) Standing Order No. 5 (Precedence of government business) shall have effect for this Session with the following modifications, namely:
In paragraph (2) the word sixteen" shall be substituted for the word 'ten' in line 6; in paragraph (3) the word 'ninth' shall be substituted for the word 'seventh' in line 8; and in paragraph (5) the word 'four' shall be substituted for the word 'ten' in line 27;
(2) Public Bills other than Government Bills shall have precedence over Government Business on 8th and 15th December, 26th January, 2nd, 9th, 16th and 23rd February, 1st, 22nd and 29th March, 5th and 26th April, and 3rd, 10th, 17th and 24th May;
(3) private Members' Notices of Motions shall have precedence over Government Business on 24th November, 1st December and 8th and 15th March, and ballots for these Notices shall be held after Questions on 8th and 15th November, the 21st and 28th February, respectively;
(4) on Monday, 18th December, Monday, 5th February, Monday, 29th April, and Monday, 1st July, private Members' Notices of Motions shall have precedence until Seven o'clock, and ballots for these Notices

shall be held after Questions on Monday, 4th December, Tuesday, 23rd January, Wednesday, 10th April, and Tuesday, 18th June, respectively;
(5) no Notice of Motion shall be handed in for any of the days on which private Members' Notices have precedence under this Order in anticipation of the ballot for that day.

EARL ATTLEE (MEMORIAL SERVICE)

Resolved,
That this House will on Tuesday, 7th November attend a Memorial Service for the Right Honourable the Earl Attlee in the Collegiate Church of St. Peter, Westminster.
That, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House), on Tuesday next this House do meet at a quarter to Eleven o'clock, that after Prayers Mr. Speaker do suspend the Sitting until half past Two o'clock, and that at that hour the House do proceed with Business as provided in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House), as if the House had met at that hour.—[Mr. M. Stewart.]

Orders of the Day — QUEEN'S SPEECH

DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS

[SECOND DAY]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [31st October]:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:—
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

Question again proposed.

Mr. Speaker: It may be helpful to the House if I indicate, as far as I know it at this moment, the course of the rest of the debate on the Motion for an Address. I understand that it has been suggested that today, as yesterday, the trend of the debate should be general, that tomorrow the main speeches are expected to relate to foreign affairs, and on Friday to education. I have no information yet about the debates for Monday and Tuesday.

3.17 p.m.

The First Secretary of State (Mr. Michael Stewart): Yesterday the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was pleased to describe the proposals in the Speech as drab, dreary and irrelevant.

Mr. Edward Heath: Frivolously irrelevant.

Mr. Stewart: Frivolously irrelevant, yes. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I shall invite the House to look at the proposals in the Speech and to notice from that what kind of a beholder the right hon. Gentleman is. He asked also for measures which would create a framework in which enterprise could flourish. With that, of course, we should all agree, just as we should all agree with the right hon. Gentleman in being in favour of the cliffs, the sea and the sands, and with large chunks of his rhetoric.
To create a framework in which enterprise can flourish is a matter of both

economic and social measures, and it is on these that I wish to speak this afternoon, economic measures of a kind which will enable us to have steady economic growth without provoking inflation and without endangering the balance of payments. The necessity for that is not in dispute, but I believe also that we are living at a time when people's motives are not concerned only with the immediate individual rewards to enterprise.
We live in a community that is becoming increasingly more conscious of social problems that need to be solved, of gaps in the provision of welfare, and of particular pockets of poverty. If we want a framework in which enterprise can thrive, we must be able to assure the nation as a whole that one of the results of enterprise of effort, in the economic field, is not only reward to individuals but the creation of a country free from the reproaches of the particular pieces of poverty which we know increasingly and deplore. If economic measures are necessary to give individual incentive to enterprise, social measures are necessary to give the whole nation the belief that when we speak of growth and economic success they are worth striving for not only in individual terms but in terms of the quality of the civilisation we are trying to create.
I do not think that it would be disputed that the measures which will create the economic framework in which enterprise can flourish include the following among the most important: first, the encouragement of investment; second, the development of regional policies, so that economic activity can be spread more evenly, and so that we shall not be faced with the dilemma that it is impossible to take steps which may help employment in the developing areas without producing overheating of the economy in other parts of the country; third, an effective prices and incomes policy; fourth, a proper basis for that partnership between Government and industry which, whatever some of the more extreme hon. Members opposite may feel, is an essential feature of economic life in the twentieth century; fifth, a proper understanding between management, government, the community and the trade unions, a matter on which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition laid some stress.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it quite clear yesterday that the pessimistic judgments expressed by the right hon. Gentleman and others about the future of investment were not borne out by the facts. But while there is still need for care and room for concern and anxiety on investment and all economic questions, the most pessimistic prophecies have not been fulfilled. What the Government have done in the increase of investment grants and the acceleration of their payment has remedied the situation so gloomily forecast about 12 months ago.
I must emphasise that regional development is not merely a social question, important as it is in human terms to see that people in Scotland, Wales, the North and other parts of the country do not suffer continually from the exceptional unemployment that has plagued them in the past. There is perhaps in the long term the greater economic importance of getting an even spread of economic activity over the whole country, because the unemployment problem today is very largely regional.
If the figure of unemployment which we had to deal with were that which prevails, say, in the London area, we could truthfully say that it was not a serious problem and was manageable. The solving of the unemployment problem is largely bound up with a proper regional policy. What does the allegedly irrelevant Speech say about that? It says:
Further measures will be taken to stimulate economic advance in the development areas and to promote a more even distribution of employment in all regions, as a means to national expansion.
That sentence is based on a solid foundation of fact. In addition to increasing the investment grants, we have made an important differential rate for them in the development areas. We have gone ahead with the provision of advance factories in the development areas at a rate which far exceeds anything achieved by the previous Government. We have carried out systematically and thoroughly a process of dispersal not only of Government offices but of those of any official or semi-official organisations which in the past had an automatic habit of establishing themselves in the metropolis. We have seen that Scotland, Wales, the North

and the other areas in need have had their fair share of this development.
We have carried through the policy of industrial development certificates; by now one-third of the development permitted by industrial development certificates is in the development areas. That is a much higher proportion than previously. We have applied this policy not only to industry but to offices, and this benefits not only the regions that may be faced with serious unemployment but also overcrowded regions like London, whose housing and traffic problems were being rendered continually insoluble by the multiplication of office employment in the metropolis.
In the Parliament before 1964 my hon. Friends and I repeatedly urged from the Benches opposite that the concept of industrial development certificates which applied to industry should also be applied to office employment. Time and again we were told that this was totally impracticable. "Nonsense on stilts" was, I think, the phrase used about the proposal by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), who, I believe, may catch your eye in this debate, Mr. Speaker. When he says that, he is rather like the doctor who told a patient that he must expect to die in six months and when he met the patient in good health 12 months later asked with irritation, "What confounded quack has been treating you?". That which the right hon. and learned Gentleman said was impracticable has been done, and we are beginning, at long last, to cope with the problem of the terrible, constant influx into the South-East of England.
In addition to the measures which have been at work for some time, there is the coming impact of the regional employment premiums. Their importance and significance are partly to be measured by the concern expressed in some parts of the country that we might even have been tilting the balance too far in favour of the development areas. But if there is a danger of that—and it might be a little while before we allow ourselves to become too worried on that score—we have provided for it by the appointment of a committee under Sir Joseph Hunt to deal with the problems of those parts of the country which are not development areas but have particular economic problems.
I have spoken of the regional measures we have adopted and which we can already notice beginning to have effect. We are at a time of year when the seasonal movement of employment is upwards and it is therefore legitimate to look at the seasonally-adjusted rate of unemployment. I do not want anything I say to be interpreted as minimising the seriousness of unemployment wherever, and to whatever extent, it occurs, but it is fair to point out that the seasonally-adjusted rate and the number of unfilled vacancies are moving favourably. These developments are exceptionally favourable in Scotland, Wales and the North. It is still too high, I agree. It is still true that the rate of unemployment in Scotland is about 50 per cent. greater than that of Great Britain as a whole, and that is serious enough, but for years it used to be double the rate for Great Britain.
I do not want to underestimate the complexity and the toughness of this problem, but the figure which I have mentioned suggests that we are steadily moving in the right direction and that the things which we have done, and the further things which are forecast in the Gracious Speech—and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs will have more to say about that later, Mr. Speaker, if he catches your eye—are certainly not irrelevant, nor do the people in the development areas think them drab or dreary.

Earl of Dalkeith: The right hon. Gentleman boasts about what the Government have been doing. If he is to avoid charges of complacency, will he not recognise that many of the advance factories about which he is talking are still unfortunately standing empty in Scotland—about eight, of which one has been empty for nearly one-and a-half years?

Mr. Stewart: I do not think that it can fairly be said that the way in which I have approached this problem has been complacent. But if one does not want to be complacent, nor does one want to get into an unnecessary mood of gloom. There are advance factories, it is true, which are not yet tenanted, but if the hon. Member looks at the general

record of advance factories he will see how very small a percentage of them remain untenanted for any length of time. If in particular parts of the country this proves to be an obstinate problem, then, as is forecast in the Gracious Speech, we shall have to consider what further measures may be necessary, but up to date the general record of the tenancy of advance factories is a good one.
I have said, thirdly, that for developing a framework in which enterprise can flourish we need a constructive and effective policy on prices and incomes. We know the pattern. If there is growth, there is a danger that incomes may rise faster than productivity and that this may have such an effect on prices as to damage our balance of payments and again call a halt to the economy. We have been working in very difficult circumstances towards a constructive policy on prices and incomes. From September, 1964, until June, 1966, prices were rising at the rate of about 5 per cent. per year. Since June, 1966, they have been rising at a rate of about 1¼ f per cent. per year. During that same period, since June, 1966, earnings have risen by a rate of about 2½ per cent. a year. It is significant that the increase in earnings has sprung mainly from two causes, one where there have been genuine productivity agreements negotiated and secondly where something has been done specifically for lower paid workers.
My hon. Friends, hon. Members opposite and the whole country are bound to have much to say in comment and criticism on any policy of prices and incomes because it goes right to people's pockets and personal experience. I would not claim more than this—and I think that it is an important claim: despite the very difficult circumstances of June, 1966, in which we had to begin to operate it, we have shown that it is possible by a conscious policy of prices and incomes to prevent a runaway inflation of prices and to begin to inject an increasing measure of justice into earnings. But the greater part of this job still remains to be done, with the co-operation of management and of the trade unions, and I do not think that even the right hon. Gentleman, in the critical mood he was yesterday about trade unions, would deny that the leaders


of the trade union movement have shown a serious and constructive approach towards making a constructive policy on prices and incomes work.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Reverting to some of my right hon. Friend's earlier remarks, can he explain to the House the contradiction between injecting new industry and new employment into the development areas of the country and making certain that there is full employment and at the same time pursuing a policy of deflation which equally affects the new industries which we have injected, and which has in fact affected them over the past year?

Mr. Stewart: I have tried to make it clear that one of the reasons why it has been difficult to get the rate of growth we want is that the growth has been too unbalanced and that the moment we begin to get a respectable level of growth we are in danger of getting overheating in the overcrowded areas of the country. The point about regional policy is that if we see that a greater part of our growth is in those parts of the country where there would otherwise be unemployed labour and unused resources, it is possible to get greater growth without producing the overheating and the inflation which endanger the economy.
It is fair to ask the Opposition where they stand on prices and incomes policy. Some of them do not believe in having a prices and incomes policy at all and think that we should just let things rip. Some of them believe in having some kind of prices and incomes policy provided that it leaves them complete freedom to attack any particular measure or action taken by the Government of the day. Nothing that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday made us any clearer about what was the view of the Opposition on prices and incomes policy.
There is one other point which I want to make about a prices and incomes policy, and it is mentioned in the Gracious Speech, as is the point to which I shall now draw attention. If we want acceptance of a prices and incomes policy we need the consumer or the housewife to feel that she is getting value for money, and that is the relevance of the proposed Consumer Protection Act against mislmling trade descriptions,

which is mentioned in the Gracious Speech, and which I do not think the ordinary consumer and housewife will think irrelevant in the way in which the right hon. Gentleman thinks it irrelevant.
If we are to create a framework favourable to enterprise, there must be a better understanding of the relationship between Government and industry. I do not think that any hon. Member opposite will deny that in the past the Government have provided both financial help and some advice and organisational work to various industries—to shipbuilding, to aircraft, to cotton, to name only some. So far all these measures have been taken ad hoc as a particular emergency seemed to require, each requiring its separate bit of legislation. Would hon. Members opposite say that all those measures which have been taken in the past, many of which they themselves took, were undesirable?
Nor do I think that they could deny that the circumstances which make measures of that kind necessary are likely to continue. With the complexity of industry today, and the enormous amount of scientific research and investment which is often needed, some form of partnership between Government and industry becomes increasingly necessary and the need for it is liable to arise in an increasing number of cases. I do not believe that any student of the matter can deny that.
What we are proposing, in effect, in the Gracious Speech is that this situation, which up to now has had to be dealt with ad hoc, with all the delays in not starting on legislation until the problem is already acute, should in future be put on a recognised Parliamentary basis. This was so that, on the one hand, the Government of the day should be able to play the part that they should play without the delays of a separate piece of legislation each time and, secondly, that Parliament itself should have a proper control over the use made by the Government of the powers which we propose to give them in the Industrial Expansion Bill.
Is the Leader of the Opposition really going to say that this is irrelevant to the problems of the mid-20th century? His only comment on this was that private enterprise "must fight"—fight, not be it noticed, for greater efficiency, but against the Government to whom it so frequently


has recourse for financial assistance of this, that and the other kind. That has been the case not only under this Government but, as hon. Members opposite know very well, under their own Government over a long period.
Lastly in the economic sector there is the question of the rôle to be played by the trade unions. I think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt adequately yesterday with any point that the Opposition may have wished to make about the number of days lost in industrial disputes in recent months and the record when some right hon. Gentlemen opposite were at the Ministry of Labour.
But the Leader of the Opposition said that today it was not only a question of how many days were lost but where the strikes were that mattered. But what are the facts? The strikes are—and this is something we all regret—in the main where they have usually been over a long period of years, that is, in certain industries which have an unhappy record of industrial relations. I believe that the moral to be drawn is how much this is a problem of personal relations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) yesterday gave us an example of one industrial dispute brought about by a concatenation of strife and ill-will and a refusal by the employers to recognise trade union rights. This typified the kind of problem we have to deal with. It is a personal problem and I cannot believe that the proposition we have had from the Conservative Party of a new kind of industrial court with presumably some sort of penal powers and, currently, a proposal to go back to the Taff Vale judgment and reverse the Trades Disputes Act, 1906, is really the way forward into the latter part of the twentieth century in our industrial relations.
This is a very great problem requiring a great deal of thought and surely common sense, prudence and humanity all say that, before pronouncing on this, we should have the Report of the Royal Commission. I cannot think that the nation will conclude that the whole wisdom on this subject is to be found in the Conservative Party rather than in the members of the Royal Commission and if the nation says, "Why was not

the Royal Commission appointed earlier?" that is a question that it must address to the Conservative Party and not to us.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Accepting what my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the First Secretary of State have said on this subject, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has referred his statement to the Minister of Labour in relation to what the latter said about industrial disputes recently?

Mr. Stewart: I do not think that there is any contrast here. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour will agree entirely with what I have said. The point I am making is that the right way to deal with this problem is to await the report of the Royal Commission——

Sir Harmar Nicholls: rose——

Mr. Stewart: —and to act in the light of the studied consideration of its recommendations. That is, in fact, what the Gracious Speech recommends.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Minister of Labour will agree with him. Does he agree with the Minister of Labour?

Mr. Stewart: Certainly. There is no doubt—and we all know this—that a certain number of people have the attitude towards an industrial dispute of wanting to inflame it rather than solve it. But, apart from that, it remains true that, whether there are people seeking to inflame a dispute or not, there are often real causes for a dispute and sometimes those causes lie not so much in present facts but in old history. That is exactly the point I was making. I was a little reluctant to give way to the hon. Gentleman because, when he got up a little earlier, he said, "in a word" but spoke about 500 words. However, this time he was a little more restrained.
I want to turn now to certain social measures and to emphasise the fact that measures to improve the social services should not be thought of as a sort of special extra luxury that we permit to people if they are good. They are part of the economy of a civilised nation. They are part of creating among our


people the feeling that it is worth while to work for this country and to make it prospers us.
On the social services, I want first to say something about housing, which has a special relevance to the economic problems, since it is true that we shall not get our economic situation right not only for the immediate future but as a permanent feature of our life unless there can be greater mobility of labour between one part of the country and another and we cannot have much mobility unless there is a sufficient supply of houses. That is why I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition regards this as an irrelevant paragraph:
My Government will continue to develop policies to secure a rising programme of house-building and better conditions for the people.
That again is not something which is not based on fact. It is a continuation of what we have been having—a rising programme ever since 1964. The number of houses completed each year has risen and this year will be in the neighbourhood of 400,000, while about 500,000 houses are now under construction. Nor is it only a matter of more houses. Because of the action taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, they are to be houses of better standard.
Not only is the total increasing but, rightly and necessarily, at any rate in the present situation, the proportion of total building which is being done by local authorities has been increased. One of the reasons for that is that we have provided the local authorities with a guaranteed rate of interest on which they can borrow for housing lower than the general market rate. This again was one of the things which we so often pressed for in Opposition. We sought a special interest rate for certain social purposes, particularly housing, but time and again we were told that it was impossible. But it is important for the House to follow this through.
The argument we put forward in Opposition was that, in the end, houses are not, of course, built by Ministers, or Parliament, or subsidies or Bills. They are built, by men and materials and a great part of solving the housing problem depends on getting a greater proportion of industrial building into our total

construction. We argued in Opposition that, if we wanted the local authorities to do more industrial building, they must have an assured long programme ahead of them, because industrial building, unless a large programme ahead could be assured, would be mighty expensive, whereas, if one could be sure of a long programme, it could become quicker and less expensive.
We therefore argued, rightly, that we must give local authorities this assurance by making it clear that Government policy was for more local authority houses and that we must help them over the rate of interest. On this again, the right hon. and hon. Members opposite who spoke for the then Government on housing were very contemptuous. But what has happened? We have had the increased local authority building. We have given help over the rate of interest. We have, in consequence, got a steadily rising proportion of houses being built by industrial methods. We have been justified in the event.
Turning from housing to education, which is referred to in, I suppose, several "irrelevant" paragraphs of the Speech, reference is made to
the development of comprehensive secondary education",
to Measures
to accelerate improvement of schools in socially deprived areas"—
that is following the recommendations of the Plowden Report—and
a high priority to the supply of teachers.
I am surprised that anyone could regard those things as irrelevant. They are concerned not only with social justice, but with economic efficiency.
We have heard a good deal of talk about the brain drain. My own feeling is that we should have less need to be worried about this if we were sure that we were doing everything within our power to see that the enormous reservoir of natural talent within our own people was being fully developed. That is one of the things that comprehensive secondary education is about.
Once again, where do the Opposition stand on this? I have observed them over the years move from the period when it was assumed that only a fool or a knave could believe in comprehensive schools to the point where they said.


"We think comprehensive schools may be a good idea in some places. It must not be thought that we are against comprehensive schools, but", and so on, with every tergiversation which ingenuity could provide. We must know whether they think it is a good thing that children at the age of ten and a half should be subjected to some kind of selection which will determine their educational opportunities thereafter. That is what the argument is about and what we have never had a straight answer upon.

Miss J. M. Quennell: The right hon. Gentleman began this section of his speech with a reference to the brain drain. He adduced comprehensive education as a plug for this drain, to use a rather inelegant phrase. But is he aware that in my constituency there is an assistant lecturer with two degrees who is on the brink of going to America because she is left with between 4s. and 5s. a day to live on, and what the devil will comprehensive education do for her?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Lady must understand that the richest nation on earth speaks our language and this results in a draw on the people of our country which no other comparable industrial country experiences. Nobody denies that this is a problem, but surely it is legitimate to see that more steps are taken to ensure that everybody in this country who has natural ability has a chance of developing it, instead of being prevented from having that chance by arbitrary judgments when they are ten and a half years old. Only then will we be more likely to be able to meet the inevitable problem which this brain drain creates. I am not saying that it is the sole or the only measure, but we might be better employed trying to improve opportunities for our own people to develop their natural talents than constantly wringing our hands about the brain drain.
Similarly, there is the paragraph in the Speech, following up the Plowden Report, relating to
the improvement of schools in socially deprived areas.
Will anyone say that that is irrelevant?
Then there is the
high priority to the supply of teachers.
That is not a comment for the future without foundation in the past. The

number of young people now in training to be teachers is 50 per cent. higher than it was when this Government came into power. I do not believe that in any previous period of three years, with the possible exception of the emergency period immediately after the war, there has been an improvement on that scale.
Turning to the social services in general, I believe that there is a great and growing national interest in what the future of our social services as a whole is likely to be. This is natural, because it is an unending problem. It would be a mistake to suppose that this country, or any other, will ever get to the point where it can say that it has solved all its problems of poverty and need, because every success in this field creates fresh problems in its turn.
It was rightly pointed out, in a moving speech at the Labour Party conference, that some of the improvements in medicine which have caused people who might otherwise have died in infancy to survive, have created a problem as to how those who live with handicaps can make their full contribution to society. Therefore, I say that the social services problem is by its nature an unending one and one on which we want to take counsel with the whole country. We need the opinions of people in local authorities, doctors, voluntary social workers, and people who have made studies in the universities. It is for that reason that on 2nd December I am calling a conference so that the Government can take counsel with people from these various sources about the future development of the social services.
There is one comment on general principle and approach that I would make. We have heard a good deal of the phrase
selectivity in the social services",
or that pious general phrase,
We must concentrate help where it is most needed.
We need to be a little more exact about that in our thinking. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), who can always be relied upon to let the cat out of the bag, with considerable candour put it quite plainly. He said that in approaching the social services we should start by assuming that selectivity is to be the rule and universality is to be the exception. That


at least is something to bite on. I wonder if it really means what it says. Does it mean that we start off by looking at the education service and seeing in how many instances we can require people to pay school fees? Does it mean that we will take the health service and deliberately re-create it as something that is in the main paid for by the sick when they are sick? That is what the words mean.
I know very well that hon. Members opposite will say, "Oh, but are there not already, with Government approval, some selective services?" That is perfectly true. When one has to deal with a particular problem it is more sensible, as an immediate measure, to remedy hardship by a selective measure than to do nothing. That was what we did with rate rebates, which was a great improvement on the pitiful rate rebate Measure introduced in the last Administration. One million people who need it very badly are benefiting from that on average to the tune of £15 each a year. The same is true of rent rebates.
I mention these points to show that I do not approach this with an entirely closed mind. However, I say that the approach of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West in saying that selectivity should be the rule and universality the exception is to get the thing completely back to front. It is desirable to see that as far as possible one can provide for needs without people having to answer questions about their means. One will not be able to do it—and I give this as a present to the party opposite—100 per cent., but one ought to regard that as the rule and the other as the exception for the reasons I have given, among others, and I do not think that these have been properly considered.

Mr. Heath: Could the right hon. Gentleman explain why, on his own principles, his Government are not dealing with the problem of the half million children in this country who are really in need today on a selective basis instead of dealing only with a quarter of a million of them through universality?

Mr. Stewart: Because this is part of the whole central structure of the social services, whereas rate rebates and rent rebates are bound up with our present peculiar method of local government

finance, which may not be with us for ever. If the right hon. Gentleman will study the statement of my right hon. Friend, now the Secretary of State for Education, he will see that there is some acceptance of the idea which I believe to be at the back of the right hon. Gentleman's mind in what was said about child allowances for Income Tax purposes. There may be some room for argument as to whether a particular need should be met universally or selectively, but I am certain that to start by saying that selectivity is to be the rule and the other the exception is to get the thing completely back to front. So far, apart from that pronouncement, we are not very much wiser about what the Conservative Party proposes.
I want to say something about the future development of the social services. One of the great things on which the Government are engaged is hammering out a proper system of graduated pensions, graduated contributions and benefits. The House will realise that this is a very great and complex problem involving the position of widows, married women, self-employed, and non-employed, and also involving the problem of weighting, because no one would suggest that the pension a man gets on retirement should always be in exact mathematical proportion to the income he earned when in work, however great or small that was. There should be some weighting in favour of those with lower incomes. There is the question of what is a fair amount. There is the problem of the contracting out of occupational pension schemes. With all these the Government are proceeding and will expect to legislate in this Parliament. There still remain certain particular problems, and I draw the attention of the House to the statement of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health on the study which he is undertaking of the needs of the disabled.
Another subject in which particular study is needed is that of low wages. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security has pointed out that from the survey of family poverty it was apparent that only one-eighth of the cases of poverty revealed by that survey were due to the operation of the wage stop, while the remaining seven-eighths were due to the problem of low wages. I will not pretend to give the House an


answer to that problem this afternoon, but I am convinced that an answer can be found. It must be found by combined study by Government and industry and trade unions. I list those as one respect in which the social services must advance.
Next we have to consider seeing to it that the various services now administered by local authorities are better coordinated. I think that we will all have had letters from our constituents on this subject, sometimes from unhappy people suffering, it would seem, from almost every trouble at once—unemployment, ill health, perhaps mental ill health, family troubles, quarrels with their employers, difficulties at the employment exchange—and the problem of trying to relate them to all the agencies which are supposed to meet all those needs. I am convinced that it is possible, as is proposed following the study in Scotland, for us to get these services better organised, first at local and then at national level.
I do not think that the people in Scotland would regard this as irrelevant. The Gracious Speech contains a reference to the Bill which is to reorganise social work services in Scotland. That will not be regarded as irrelevant by anyone in Scotland who knows these social problems. In this part of the country in a few months we shall have the report of the Seebohm Committee, on the basis of which I hope that we shall be able to carry through measures for the coordination and improvement of these services in this country.
I mention just two other things in the social services to which we must give attention. One is to find a proper sphere for the voluntary worker in the social services. In the distant past social work in this country depended almost entirely on voluntary effort and as the State's provision grew, there was some tendency for some voluntary workers to be jealous of the State's activity. We are finding, and those local authorities which manage their business best have already found, that it is possible to get fruitful co-operation between the local authority, or the relevant Departments of certain Ministries responsible for most of the public money involved, and the voluntary worker who can so often be so

helpful in pointing out to the Government agency where the help is needed. Further study is needed in this respect.
We want also to promote more research into the many different causes of social difficulty. Recently I visited in Scotland an occupational centre for very young and very seriously mentally retarded children. I talked there with a lady who had been doing that kind of work for 40 years. She told me a great many things about the particular predilections and habits of these unfortunate children, and I asked her whether she would write a book. She said that she did not feel that she had the talent for that.
It occurred to me that it would be worth the while of somebody, of some university, to employ some intelligent and sympathetic young man or woman to go round and talk to thousands of people who had done work like that and correlate their experience. Each fact which she told me might prove, on examination, to be an isolated fact leading nowhere. On the other hand, collected with other experiences, it might open the door to knowledge and increase mankind's mastery over the various afflictions to which he is heir.
Work of that kind, whether met by private or public funds, would be valuable research. When I think of some of the able-bodied people going round asking members of the public which kind of detergent they prefer, I sometimes wish that we had more labour of this kind devoted to urgent socially useful purposes.
I cannot think that a Speech containing these measures of economic advance and concerned with these social problems is really "drab, dreary and frivolously irrelevant". When the right hon. Gentleman said that it was drab and dreary, he reminded me a little of the student who asked his tutor, "Can you recommend me some books to read about the Dark Ages?". "Dark Ages?" replied the professor, "You mean the ages which are dark to you". These things may be drab and dreary to the right hon. Gentleman, but not to millions of our citizens. Work in the development areas, the promotion of investment, the reorganisation of great industries, the improvement of housing, education and the social services generally


are not drab and dreary to anyone who has justice or compassion in his make-up.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: We have heard a characteristically grey speech from the right hon. Gentleman the First Secretary of State. Perhaps the kindest thing that I can say about it this time is that much of it was nonsense without the stilts. We used to discuss these matters often enough on the Floor of the House, and I will pick up as I go along some of the points that he made about housing and education and some of the other social services. I do not know what adjectives hon. Members would like to use to describe the Gracious Speech. One thing is certain, it does not generate wave after wave of wild enthusiasm.
It certainly contains nothing of the elements of hope and confidence which are needed to secure the economic advancement of the country, nationally, and in the development areas, or to promote what the Government call a more even distribution of employment. The Prime Minister yesterday and the First Secretary today were still much more complacent about unemployment than Members who come from areas suffering from this can feel. Not only do these figures show wide variations from area to area, but variations inside the regions as well.
He referred to the North of England. The average for North-East England is still about double the national average. One has a situation in which unemployment can be as high as 7 per cent. in Prudhoe and, for the moment, under 1 per cent. in Haltwhistle.

Mr. Joel Barnett: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. Friends are not to appear somewhat hypercritical, would he now say that it is not their policy to pursue a level of unemployment—the sort of unemployment policy that is known as the Paish policy, of the type that we are now having? Would he advocate something different, and if so, will he tell us what it is?

Mr. Rippon: What we advocate are the sensible economic policies that we are not getting from the Government in order to remedy the situation. As for regional policies, it was my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition who played

such a notable part in setting those policies in motion.
Unless the Government take further measures in the North to provide new factories and the industry for them, and provide retraining before pit closures or the other causes of redundancy—to use the polite word for unemployment now—occur, the figures may well get worse. The right hon. Gentleman referred to what the Government have done about the dispersal of offices. That was started by the Conservative Government. We took the steps to transfer the Post Office Savings Bank to Glasgow. This is part of a general policy.
But we talked about the dispersal of Government offices, not the creation of additional Government offices. There are now 6 million sq. ft. of additional Government offices, a great deal of that in the Metropolis. What the Government ought to bear in mind is that there is a need too for new commercial offices for many of these areas in order to attract employment. When they were in opposition, right hon. Gentlemen opposite not only demanded fewer offices, but an improvement in office conditions at the same time.
It is very disappointing that there was not more to be said by the right hon. Gentleman about regional policy generally. When dealing with the House of Lords the Government, of course, attach great importance to the part that a democratically elected assembly should play in our national lives. It is all the more regrettable that the Government do not take some steps to disgorge some of the power that they like to retain in their own hands in Whitehall to democratically elected bodies in the regions. There is not much confidence in the ad hoc Ministerially appointed regional councils as they are now constituted. All this is typical of the Government's determination, shown time after time, to centralise as much power as possible in their own hands.
A key theme in the Gracious Speech is the economy. It says:
The principal aim of My Government's policy is the achievement of a strong economy. This should combine a continuing surplus on the balance of payments sufficient to meet our international obligations and to maintain the strength of sterling with a satisfactory growth of output and with full employment.


That is exactly what this Government are failing to do. There is absolutely nothing in the devious and misleading speech of the Prime Minister yesterday that can disguise the evils that are falling upon the nation as a result of stagnant production, higher prices, increased taxes and falling private industrial investment at home and overseas. Unless we can free ourselves from the economic mess into which the Government have dragged us, all the rest of the pious hopes for the future are doomed.
On 2nd October, 1964, the Prime Minister proclaimed in Glasgow:
You have the Labour Party with our dynamic, exciting, challenging plans for the new Britain we need to create.
I do not know what adjective one can apply to the Gracious Speech, but I know that three drab and dreary years later what we have is the largest Government in the world mounted on top of a swollen bureaucracy; an intolerable burden of public expenditure and taxation; a sustained and damaging attack on free enterprise; and a steady erosion of freedom and initiative at every level.
What this country desperately needs, and what ought to have been provided in the Gracious Speech are measures to reorganise the machinery of government, particularly the Treasury. The Department of Economic Affairs ought to disappear altogether. There should be measures to restore the balance between the public and private sector of the economy; measures to restore and increase the opportunities for free enterprise; and measures to protect individual rights.
Once upon a time, as all good fairy stories begin, the Prime Minister promised that the Government's principal aims were to be the promotion of efficiency and prosperity. The Government's idea of efficiency is, first of all, to create a large number of new Ministries and to appoint no less than 110 Ministers. The number of Ministers in this House has increased by 30 per cent. in three years. It is true that one of the Ministries has now disappeared, the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources, but the Ministers themselves remain.

Sir Cyril Osborne: And draw their salaries.

Mr. Rippon: When it comes to political patronage, Lord North was a rank amateur compared with the Prime Minister. These Ministers have to be kept busy dealing with the cascade of legislation, much of it half-baked, and incomprehensible even to experts, much less to the man on the Clapham omnibus. Further, in pursuit of this main objective of efficiency, we have seen the most stupendous growth in the number of central and local government employees in our history. The last count showed that between October, 1964, and June of this year there had been an increase of 54,000 in the number of central government employees and 159,000 in the number of local government employees.
Every one of these is tying down about two or three other people in the private sector. Hardly a day passes without some evidence of the increased and unproductive burden that is being placed upon the ordinary citizens in dealing with the bureaucracy. Only this week my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell) has expressed herself amazed, as well she might, that 14 different inspectors can examine an agricultural merchant's books and that large firms have to fill in nearly 10,000 forms a year.
It is the same story everywhere—an avalanche of forms for new taxes, for planning permissions and the building permits that the First Secretary loves so much, for the repayment of S.E.T., which ought to disappear even faster than the First Secretary, for the repayment of the training board levies, for the Land Commission and all the rest of the swollen administrative machinery. Only yesterday Sir Hugh Wilson, the President of the R.I.B.A., complained bitterly of the way in which architects are seriously delayed while their plans are worked over by one set of officials after another. Well might he say that never have so many people checked the work of so many others to so little purpose.
Who can say that we are either more efficient or more prosperous as a result of this Government activity? Not even the Government's appointment of more than 50 additional Press and public relations officers has been able to convince us of that. I suppose that after last night's exhibition by the Foreign Secretary, they are all pretty busy today. Unfortunately his public image is one that is not an illusion.
Not even the additional battery of statisticians and public relations officers have been able to keep the Prime Minister on the right lines, or enable him to guide us along the paths of truth and wisdom.
When you quote the official price index",
the Prime Minister complained in Cambridge on Saturday,
no matter with what care and accuracy it is calculated, you are met with disbelief".
Unfortunately, on that occasion, he calculated with less care and accuracy than his own Minister of Agriculture, and so he found a fall in food prices whereas his Minister had already admitted an increase. He did not say anything about the 10 per cent. rise in prices since 1964—not very efficient, or perhaps just not very honest.
Nor were the Prime Minister's allegations about what he called "provocative" rent increases by local authorities any more accurate. The latest Ministry of Housing and Local Government circular on rent rebate schemes issued on 30th June this year says that local authorities have to maintain a fair balance between ratepayers and tenants. The First Secretary referred with scorn to the Opposition's use of the "pious phrase", "help where it is most needed", but the Government's circular to local authorities in June quotes with approval the statement made in the White Paper on the Housing Programme, 1965–70, Cmnd. 2838, paragraph 41. Much of it has disappeared, but this remains:
This means that subsidies should not be used wholly or even mainly to keep general rent levels low. Help for those who most need it"—
the Government's own phrase—
can be given only if the subsidies are in large part used to provide rebates for tenants whose means are small".
What is that but selectivity, and a very good thing too.
However, no doubt the Prime Minister or the other Secretary of State—there are so many of them these days—who is winding up tonight will respond to the challenge of my hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) to name the local authorities which have imposed "provocative" rent increases.
Unfortunately, council house tenants are suffering, like everybody else in this

country, from the Government's failure to achieve their second main objective, which is prosperity. Like everyone else, they are having to pay for the rising cost of land—and it has risen—the rising cost of building and the most prolonged period of high interest rates which this country has known in years. I remember the debates which we had with the right hon. Gentleman. He talked about his differential interest rates. I remember warning the House and the country that they would be very foolish if they paid attention to this favourite "loss leader" of the Labour Party, and they would be in trouble if they walked into the emporium of Messrs. Wilson and Callaghan. I was right. Woe betide the people, because the Government take 5d. and then say with pride, "We have given you back 3d.".
Council house tenants, like everybody else, are paying because the Government, by their own policies, have destroyed the proper balance between the public and private sectors of the economy. We all know that the rise in public expenditure is now far outstripping the growth in national wealth. That means both higher taxation and restrictions on the development of all the social services to which the First Secretary, like all of us, attaches importance. Public expenditure, including investment in the nationalised industries, has risen from £10,718 million in 1963 to a staggering estimated £15,586 million in 1967–68. In spite of that massive increase in investment in the public sector, it has not brought us any nearer to the main objectives of efficiency and prosperity.
Whether it is electricity, gas, rail fares or steel, all that seems to happen is that the prices increase; and it was only because of the pressure brought by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that the Government reluctantly agreed to refer the proposed substantial increases in electricity charges to the Prices and Incomes Board. Here, as everywhere else, the Government like to have one law for themselves and another for the rest of the community.
They always claim to nationalise in the name of the people, but the only part which the people play in a nationalised industry, is to pay for it. The truth is that, whether the Government talk of nationalisation, modernisation, planning


or financial assistance to industry, their purpose never changes: it is to create a society in which they can more easily impose their will on the rest of us through central direction and control.
"Integration" is the word which the Government use to describe their intention to bring road and rail transport within what they call "a reorganised framework of public control". What that means, however, is that competition from road hauliers will be restricted by a new and vicious licensing system and, as a result, many private operators of lorry fleets will lose the right to use their vehicles without proper compensation being paid. Nothing which the Prime Minister said in his disingenuous speech yesterday will dispel the anxieties of both ratepayers and taxpayers about the Government's intention.
The Gracious Speech talks of strengthening the powers of local authorities. But nothing could be further from the truth. If the legislation follows the lines of the White Paper—and we have been given no indication that it will not—there will be new transport authorities, once again Ministerially appointed, which will have power to levy precepts on local authorities which will neither control the amount of the precept nor how it is spent. How that strengthens the powers of local authorities, I do not know. The total result will be a substantial increase in public ownership in road transport, the confiscation of municipally-owned bus services, the compulsory purchase of private bus companies and coach operators and so, in the end, higher rates and higher fares.
Equally calculated to throw dust in the eyes of the unwary was the Prime Minister's observations about the new financial assistance to be given to industry and the circumstances in which the Government will take a share in the form of equity capital. And so far from fears about the activities of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation having been dispelled since last year, I should have thought that there was now a greater awareness of the dangers inherent in its operations.
The possession of "the commanding heights" of the economy is what the Government are seeking, and have always sought, and it is now giving them a degree of control over the life of this nation such

as no absolute monarch has ever possessed. The Government's purpose is power. They have no other purpose. Certainly they achieve nothing else. Let no one mistake the danger. What is at stake is not the future of one or more industries or the few big companies, but the whole basis of our industrial life.
Although it has been sneered at, I believe that we have to stand up and fight or we shall all pay the penalty for years to come. As we said at the time, steel nationalisation was only the beginning of the campaign against free enterprise to which the Government are dedicated.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Would the right hon. Gentleman be serious for a moment? He called upon private industry to stand up and fight. Is this a rallying call from hon. Members opposite to private industry for non-co-operation with the Government?

Mr. Rippon: I should not have thought that anybody in this supposedly free democracy was precluded from attacking with all the means in his power measures to be introduced by a Government which he thinks wholly detrimental to the wellbeing of the nation.
We are seeing a campaign against free enterprise more vicious than any Government outside the Iron Curtain has ever embarked upon. [Laughter.] We are now hearing laughter as of the thorns crackling under the pot. While public investment expands in the way in which I have indicated, the private sector is being squeezed relentlessly. No wonder that the balance of payments position is still in the doldrums. In the long run, no nation which is dependent on foreign trade can survive stagnation in the private sector of the economy.
The significance of the continuing deficit in the balance of payments, at a time when the terms of trade are rather more favourable to us than for some time past, is that the economy is now far weaker than it was at any time before. Yesterday, the Prime Minister raised, inevitably, the question of the so-called £800 million deficit in 1964. Of course, it turned out to be nearer £700 million than £800 million, but what are a few hundred million to the Prime Minister? The grave danger lies in the fact that the current deficit, unlike that of 1964, does not contain the elements of rising private


investment overseas—it is only a Treasury official who would regard that as a liability rather than an asset—or an element of stockpiling for expansion.
Furthermore, it is a deficit against a background of depleted reserves and a huge short-term international debt. My only sympathy with the Government—it is very little—is that they have to suffer the burden of Treasury advice. They ought to read Max Nicholson's book on "The System", "The Misgovernment of Modern Britain". It is much more important for this country that we should reform the Treasury than that we should reform the House of Lords. A discussion on the economy in the Treasury today is about as sensible as a discussion on sexual abstinence in a brothel. In my experience, when the Treasury and the Bank of England disagree, the Bank of England is always right, and when they both agree, they are both wrong.
The Government should listen, though they do not like it, to some of the advice of the Bank, from both the former Governor and the present one. The speech of Lord Cromer, the former Governor of the Bank of England, in New York on 22nd November, 1966, should be read by every Minister. He there described as "some curiously Anglicised Hungarian goulash" the thesis that the disappointing growth in the British economy over the years was attributable to private investment overseas—[Interruption.]—Hon. Members may not like what the former Governor of the Bank of England says, but they ought to listen to it.
As he said, what the Government are doing all the time is consuming the harvest and sterilising the corn. The only error which the present Governor made when he addressed the International Monetary Fund in Rio was that he said straightforwardly what the Government are doing, and that is one thing which the Government really cannot put up with,
Meanwhile, of course, at home, private investment in industry essential to modernisation and future expansion has fallen. The First Secretary, like the Prime Minister yesterday, made great play with the fact that it has not turned out as badly as was estimated. But where did those estirnates first come rom? It was the Board of Trade which said that it was going to fall by 10 per cent., and the Chancellor's latest estimate in July was

that it would fall this year by 6 to 8 per cent.
Characteristically, the Prime Ministet takes the lower figure, and the First Secretary dutifully has to follow it, but how they have the effrontery—after all they have said in years past about stagnation and how they would increase productivity and so finance the social services without higher taxation—to take pride in a fall of 6 per cent. in this country's productive investment, I do not understand.
Industrial production, even after a welcome small rise in recent months is still only one point higher than in January, 1965, nearly three years ago. According to this month's Board of Trade figures—not last month's or last year's, and which is alarming for the future—the total industrial building approvals for the first nine months of this year have fallen no less than 47 million sq. ft., or 14 per cent., below the corresponding period in 1966.
Yet, in spite of these building controls, of which the First Secretary is so proud, and all the other restraints on commercial activity, the housing programme—supposedly, as the right hon. Gentleman said again today, the top social priority—still lags pitifully. In September, 1964, as the then Minister of Public Building and Works, I could say that, in that year, we would complete about 370,000 houses—in fact the figure turned out to be 374,000—and to add categorically, as a pledge, that, in 1965, we would complete 400,000. I could give that pledge because a Conservative Government worked in harmony with private enterprise instead of against it.
As we know, this Government failed, in spite of repeated assurances throughout 1965 and 1966, to build 400,000 houses in 1965 and failed again in 1966. Of the future, all that the First Secretary could say today was that it will be "in the neighbourhood" of 400,000. It would be an absolute scandal if it were not.
This is another sector of the economy in which there is virtual stagnation, and here again it is the private sector which is squeezed at the expense of the public. In spite of the huge unsatisfied demand in this country for home ownership, private house building has been steadily contracting. The figures tell their own story—218,000 homes for sale built in


1965, fewer than 214,000 in 1965, only 205,000 in 1966, and perhaps fewer than 200,000 in 1967.
This is aggravated by the Government's savage restrictions on house purchase loans by local authorities. Meanwhile, of course, we are not giving nearly enough attention to the proper maintenance and improvement of our existing stock of houses in the private sector. A Government survey has revealed that there are now about 1·8 million unfit dwellings in England and Wales instead of the 0·8 million which was formerly believed to be the case. Many of these houses could be brought up to reasonable standards by the installation of modern amenities and bathrooms—although not all—and I hope that the Government will introduce measures this Session to review and improve the present system of improvement grants.
Finally, I hope that the House will take note, in the light of the Gracious Speech, that the attack on the private sector has been accompanied by the erosion of individual freedom and private rights at every level. We have made it clear that we want, as quickly as possible, to bring about a drastic reform and simplification of planning procedures—I have already referred to the views expressed by the President of the R.I.B.A. yesterday—but we will expect any Bill introduced by the Government to be a great improvement on the White Paper which was presented in the summer.
One of the great injustices is that, while present legislation, particularly that introduced by this Government, strictly controls most of the activities of private citizens, public bodies seem to have quite a different set of rules for themselves. They give themselves planning permissions to build houses, roads and bridges when it suits their purposes, and it is a very hard, uphill job, especially in these days, for local opinion to divert a public authority from its chosen path. We want to see that any new legislation ensures that there is no repetition of the scandalous way in which the Government dealt with the siting of Stansted Airport and its future.
Moreover, we will want to see that proposals to reform planning procedures will go a little further than the Government

now propose. Their proposals are inadequate by themselves. They must be accompanied by immediate action to allay the growing public dissatisfaction and anger about the present provision for compensation for compulsory purchase. I and, I expect, many other hon. Members receive many letters from the public expressing a burning sense of grievance about this and we must see that justice to the individual is given some priority at any rate over administrative convenience.
For all these coercive acts against the community—no matter in what field—and against the individual, the Government plead necessity. They had to do all these things because of the crisis which they created. But, as Milton warned us,
Necessity is the tyrant's plea by which the Fiend excuses his devilish deeds.
Our free society itself is the victim of this steady, downward spiral into a mass of new penalties, controls and regimentation, from which it is becoming increasingly clear that the worthy Ombudsman will not be able to protect us. He is precluded from dealing with policy and, of course, the Government have no hesitation, even when overruled by the courts, in immediately saying, "All we have to do is introduce new legislation."
The First Secretary referred to education, and in this respect he must face up to the fact that the outrageous behaviour of the Secretary of State for Education and Science in the Enfield case will not be tolerated by the people of this country. It is marked by this casual observation, to which the First Secretary referred, in the Gracious Speech:
Further progress will be made in the development of comprehensive secondary education.
Certainly the pattern and the structure of our education system must be continually developing. None of us has ever quarrelled with changes or experiments in education, but what we should like to have from the Government is an assurance that where educational reorganisation takes place it will henceforward be decided by local education authorities after consultation with parents and teachers—and, of course, by consultation we mean something very different from the sort of consultation the Government had with Lord Radcliffe and the Trustees of the British Museum.
The First Secretary asked where we stood on this matter. It is perfectly clear: we do not take a doctrinaire approach; but we are opposed to botched up comhensive schemes, and we are opposed to reorganisation which does nothing for the primary schools. There is no mention of this in the Gracious Speech, and this is a field of education which is just as important. What we should like the Government to remember in all this is the Prime Minister's assurance that grammar schools will be abolished over his dead body.
I hope we may also have an assurance that there will be no repetition of the threats which were made at the Labour Party conference that the Government would not hesitate to legislate on comprehensive education if local education authorities refuse to comply with requests to change. I think I am rightly quoting the Ministerial observation.
In this coming Session I hope that Members in all parts of the House will unite to restore public confidence in the ability of Parliament to protect the nation and the citizen against the overweening arrogance and the pride of Ministers. When we have regard both to what Lord Radcliffe rightly described in The Times yesterday as the
rapidly declining standards of public administration
and, I might add, to the equally rapidly declining standards of the public behaviour of Ministers, we can really reach only one conclusion: if this country is to survive, this Government must go.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn: If this had been a university debating society, the contribution by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) would have been hailed as one of the best knockabout contributions we have heard for a long time. Most people think themselves very clever if they get several smart cracks into a speech, but he seemed to spend most of his time making smart cracks about everything under the sun but saying nothing in particular. I take, for example, his reference to the invasion by the Government of private enterprise. But who started that? Who started the invasion of private enterprise by State monopolies?

Who took over the Anglo-American Oil Company? They did not take it over in order to increase its efficiency, but the Conservative Government took it over in order to share the loot from profitable oil products.
A great deal of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said is simply nonsense, and a terrorising of the public by painting a lurid picture of all the ills. If he believes half the painting which he has painted of gloom in this country, then I am sure that tomorrow he will make his own personal contribution to the brain drain. I think the best description of his speech is that it was a horror comic from start to finish, and there was nothing very serious in it as a contribution to the well-being of this community.
The Gracious Speech makes some very valuable contributions to the well-being of this country, and of the very fine survey which my right hon. Friend has given I should like to say that the most welcome part of it was that the Government will devote more attention still to the distribution of industry to the various parts of the country.
The Report on the distribution of industry was made by a Royal Commission as far back as 1939. Very little was done about it until the Distribution of Industry Bill was passed by the Coalition Government during the war. After the war, the Labour Government did a great deal in trying to divert industry away from the centres of congestion to the places where the population were waiting for jobs, and a great deal of the prosperity which exists in Scotland, Wales and elsewhere is due entirely to the work done during that period. Advance factories and industrial estates built at that time made a tremendous contribution to changing what was called in the Conservatives' day depressed areas which became development areas. Places like Dundee changed overnight from being places of distress and misery to efficient industrial and developing towns which are now showing great prosperity.
I welcome also what the Gracious Speech says about change in the House of Lords. There are dangers about this. As an ornament it does not offer a very great challenge to the House of Commons. If we made it an efficient instrument it might become a challenge. In the past


both Conservatives and Labour have been very jealous about not creating something at the other end of the corridor which would be more powerful than that which is there today. But this is a danger which the Government, I am sure, are aware of, and if it is made an efficient instrument it can contribute greatly to getting the machinery of Parliament working smoothly.
The Government are also proposing to carry on with their application to enter the European Economic Community. I am assuming for the moment that it is going to be successful. This will change the whole atmosphere of this country and its legislative processes and the working of this Parliament. I was at a conference in Rome before the Rome Treaty was signed and I ventured to suggest that in thinking in the terms they were of a European Parliament they were rather thinking in terms of taking over the management of the whole of Europe.
I do not think that this is physically or mentally a possibility. I do not think it possible for a central government in Europe to manage all the details of the affairs of every country in Europe. If they are going to try, as I said, to arrange where all the Clochemerles are to be sited, they are going to run into disaster. If they interfere too much in the localities, they will be faced immediately with the reversal of the whole project and a demand for home rule.
Therefore, the European Community must only manage things European and this Parliament will have to deal with things domestic. Nevertheless, our Parliament is now going to face the responsibility of dealing with affairs not only of Europe but great international affairs affecting the whole world.
I welcome the reforms which are being proposed in the working of Parliament to facilitate its working, but even this will not leave sufficient time for this Mother of Parliaments to deal with its responsibilities in Europe and its responsibilities in international affairs. It is as a contribution to the solving of that problem that I wish to make some suggestions.
I am sure that many Members saw the David Frost programme in which he was interviewing Welsh nationalists, and while it may have appeared a comic turn

to a great many people, I think everybody must realise that to the Welsh Nationalist Army people who appeared in the programme it was deadly serious. Not everybody has taken these nationalist movements seriously in the past, and very often as a consequence they have found themselves in disaster. Hitler started a nationalist movement which was regarded as a comic opera turn, with his marching soldiers and all the rest of it. But when the conditions became propitious, all kinds of elements attached themselves to Hitler. Von Papen adopted Hitler as being the most likely man to carry him into the Chancellorship of Germany. Eventually the criminal element attached itself to the movement and it became one of the most dangerous movements the world has ever seen; it threatened the prosperity of the world. We must not, therefore, regard nationalist movements as a comic opera turn: to the people involved in them they are very serious.
There are two elements in a nationalist movement—a reasonable element and an emotional, fanatical element. The business of this Parliament is to deal with those things which are reasonable. Among the people in Wales and Scotland who are manning the nationalist parties, there are many who feel that there is some injustice in the English Members of Parliament disregarding the affairs of Wales and of Scotland. I am sure that hon. Members will be very surprised to learn that that is what is thought of them. They may regard it as a caricature. But when this Parliament is becoming more and more immersed in international affairs and the great affairs of State, the domestic matters which used to be discussed here are no longer discussed in such detail and, indeed, cannot be so discussed, for there is no time in which to do it. There is, therefore, some justification, perhaps, for people in Scotland and Wales, and also perhaps in Yorkshire and on the North East coast, feeling that their affairs are not given sufficient attention, and whenever unemployment and other difficulties begin to develop in such areas, this Mother of Parliaments is blamed.
The nationalist movement in Scotland is not a new movement. It has come up in wave after wave over the years ever since 1707. Walter Scott wrote under a


nom de plume in the Scotsman long letters abut Scottish devolution and Scottish rights. Just before the First World War, people in Scotland were enraged because of the terrible economic conditions which developed and because they felt that nothing was being done about them. At that time the British Government refused to take any responsibility for economic prosperity throughout the country. They said that this was entirely a matter for private enterprise—the same theme as that which the right hon. Gentleman has been putting forward today. Private enterprise, being left to look after this matter, moved all its industries to the South of England, to the Birmingham and London areas. The Great West Road developed, with all its factories, and the population began to drift from the North of Scotland, from Wales and from Durham to London. Had it not been for the fact that after the First World War some steps were taken to stop this drift, it would have gone on until today, because if we leave the selection areas in the hands of economic profit alone, without any proper planning, we bring disaster to the country.
We were turning the North of Scotland and great areas of the country into deserts in order to allow industry to drift to where it was most profitable. The Royal Commission which studied this problem in 1939 said that the most important need was to distribute industry, to direct industry if necessary, as far as that was possible, back to these areas and to develop industries where the people lived.
When I became Secretary of State there was another wave of the Scottish Nationalist movement. It was very powerful, and it was the kind of development which we saw in the Welsh National Army on the screen the other night. This movement started during the war. One person was arrested for having gelignite and bombs. This was the inspiration of Hess's visit to Scotland. He had been led to believe that Scotland was on the point of a nationalist revolution and that the Duke of Hamilton, being the premier Duke of Scotland, was the right man to lead it. In his delusion, Hess came here to help him lead it.
This is, therefore, not a new movement, and as in Wales it can lead to violence. It was then leading to violence. When I became Secretary of State certain people

were threatening to blow up the Border. What good that would have done I do not know. They threatened Carter Bar. There were plots to do this and there were various other plots. While that kind of thing seems comic, when fanatics get going with guns and ammunition and when they are in a mood for destruction it sometimes can lead to very serious incidents.
During that period I determined to tackle the problem, and I had to ask myself first of all, does Scotland want to withdraw from the Mother of Parliaments? If English hon. Members were to suggest that they should put us out of this Mother of Parliaments, the very people who are now fighting for Scottish nationalism would be the first to protest about this injustice to Scotland. I therefore concluded that the last thing that Scotland wants is that Scottish Members should voluntarily walk out or should become pocket borough Members for the Tory Party such as those who appear for Northern Ireland in the House of Commons.
Anything that was done must be short of a decision that Scottish Members and Scottish influence would be taken out of Parliament. I prepared proposals that the Scottish Grand Committee should be able to deal with Bills and to discuss Scottish affairs and Scottish Estimates. Those proposals were carried through the House, and the House has found them such a success that on several occasions there have been recommendations that they should be copied. We now have power for Second Readings of Bills to be taken in Committee upstairs, we have a Welsh Grand Committee and already we have a certain amount of devolution.
I thought that this was the maximum which was reasonable. The Royal Commission which afterwards examined the matter also thought that it was the maximum which was possible and practicable. We might therefore say that the agitation which is being carried on now is unreasonable.
But we cannot be so complacent about it. We must examine the problem and see whether anything else can be done. This matter has a long history. In 1920 a Conference on devolution was set up under Mr. Speaker of that day, and that Conference reported on a complete scheme of devolution for England,


Ireland, and Scotland: Wales was also considered. I do not want to read that long Report to hon. Members, but I recommend them to study what was recommended in it. The Conference suggested that there should be local subordinate legislatures for England, Scotland and Wales, including Monmouthshire, to which there should be devolved certain powers, and that these legislatures should be called Grand Councils. The Conference went on to consider the detailed powers which should be transferred to those local parliaments. The Conference also gave the powers which would be reserved for the United Kingdom Parliament. In view of what is said in the Gracious Speech about modifying Parliament, I recommend the Government seriously to examine the Report of that Conference. At that time the Conference was not concerned with a Parliament which had the wide responsibilities of this Parliament. There have been great changes since.
If we go into Europe, I am satisfied that more time will have to be devoted to international and European affairs, and this will crush out still more things about which people are concerned. These domestic affairs should be discussed as near to the people as possible. It may be that the ideas of this Conference will be the proper way to proceed in regard to the devolution of powers and relieving our Parliament of many of its problems of today, by giving power to Grand Councils which will be able to deal with details of domestic legislation much nearer to the public.
There is a great demand to have those Councils meeting in the areas concerned. In our Parliament today we seem to think that we must be here all the time from Monday to Friday and every week and that Members of Parliament should never be anywhere else. It is a ridiculous idea that hon. Members should be occupied from Monday to Friday and that if there is nothing to do on a particular day someone should fill up the time with some matter so that we can go on discussing. That is not what Parliament was devised for and it ought not to be the case. We could have a day off Parliament on which Committees met, meeting upstairs. If this idea of devolution with Councils was brought about

there is no reason why one week in every three months should not be allowed to those Councils to discuss matters in their own countries so that discussion of domestic matters should be as near as possible to our constituents. It is a secret of the success of democracy that government should be as near to the people as possible.
There is no point in our starting to go all over the ground again in view of what was done in 1920 when this problem was examined. Hon. Members should study this report and see whether this would not be a way of making a contribution, not only to our going into Europe, not only in dealing with congestion in our Parliament and the efficiency we want to develop in the working of our machine, but also a great contribution to democracy. It would satisfy what was reasonable in these demands from Wales, Scotland and other parts of the country for government to come nearer to the people and to be more under their control. It would also be a contribution to the wellbeing of the community.
Another thing I ventured to advise that European conference in Rome was that I did not think the development of Europe would be satisfactory if it were merely a struggle to get unanimity among all the peoples of Europe. The world is an economic unit and Europe is an economic unit. An economic community is the proper way to describe Europe so far as concerns the administration, but for culture, education and the contribution of history to the development of the world I prefer to have a colourful variety. I should like to see Scotland, Wales, Ireland and parts of England contributing their own colourful variety to the development and the well-being of the world. There is no reason why we should not have competition and experimentation in culture. If we have an economic community to manage European and world affairs, there is no reason why these people should not make their own contribution to the wellbeing and the mind of the world as a whole.
I should like to have commented on much more of the jigsaw puzzle which the right hon. Gentleman produced in his horror comic, but other hon. Members want to speak in the debate and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs


will deal with any substantial points in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman.

5.05 p.m.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have consistently advocated shorter speeches in this House from back benchers and even from Privy Councillors. I shall therefore try to practise what I preach and will not follow the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirling-shire (Mr. Woodburn) in his very interesting line nor deal with many of the topics raised by the First Secretary of State although I disagree with most of what he said.
I want to raise a particular matter and I do so at this early stage in the hope that if an answer cannot be given tonight it may be given later in the debate. I raise as uncontroversially as possible the plight of certain areas in the North-West of England, particularly in North-East Lancashire, which have not development area status. I say that I raise this uncontroversially because when I was there during the Recess I spoke to people of all parties and found almost complete unanimity about what should be done. There are two problems related but different. The first is the future of the textile industry and, one of lesser magnitude, the future of the footwear industry there, and the second is the position of those districts in relation to development areas and new towns.
I think it would be foolish for anyone to contend that any of these matters are easy of solution but those interested in the textile trade seemed to want to have certain things urgently considered. First, the Government's view of the future of the industry, particularly after 1970, because there are some very important investment decisions which will have to be taken and at the moment there is no confidence in the future. I heard of one case where a redevelopment and investment in plant involving about £600,000 would be necessary but in present circumstances those concerned had no intention of spending that money.
Secondly, there was worry about the volume of imports. I was told that in sheetings 60 per cent. of the home market is now being met by imports. I was told that it was impossible for our people to manufacture at competitive

prices if 40 per cent. was all that they could get of the market. In regard to the size of quotas they had been negotiated at too high a level and also the quotas had a disrupting effect in the early part of the year when most of the quotas are taken up. If they were evenly spaced on a quarterly basis this would be of benefit. There was a good deal of talk about Portugal which has a reputation for being a good deal rougher with us than we are with Portugal. There was a case of a big order for one of our firms and a story that within 24 hours a 200 per cent. duty was put on by the Portuguese to make certain that we did not get the business. Those facts had been put to the Board of Trade. Also some agreement had been made with Portugal the terms of which could not be revealed.
Secondly, there were needed stronger anti-dumping measures and examination of the anti-dumping procedures and I should like to know if the proposals in the Gracious Speech will help at all in this respect. The Government reply up to date has been that the Textile Council has been asked to undertake a major review of productivity and efficiency and that a series of discussions have been arranged about the outlook after 1970. I do not think that is enough in present circumstances. Of course, things will pick up a little and will get a little better but the new high will be lower than the previous high and will be followed by another recession and the next low will be lower than this one and the situation will be worse than before. What is needed at present is a clearer statement of the Government's intentions.
Footwear makers are suffering from what they believe is dumping of an absolute mass of cheap imports and there is a problem of detail about investment allowances. I am writing to the Minister concerned. There is a very grave lack of confidence in the textile industry.
My second point is the contrast between these areas and development areas and new towns. I am all in favour of special inducements to attract industry to areas of surplus resources especially if it comes from what the Prime Minister calls the "overheated areas", but the present system is wrong because many places such as Nelson, Colne, Burnley, Accrington, Rawtenstall, Bacup, are not


development areas. Old industry is closing down and new industry is not coming in. Courtaulds, for instance, will not expand where it is at present but is going to Carlisle, a development area, and perhaps to Skelmersdale.
The unemployment figures, which have for so long been the test, are not a true test of the situation, because of the number of married women who do not register and because of the migration of workers. People just leave when they lose their jobs.
At present there is talk of another new town near Preston. Once again there seems to be no inducement for people to expand where they are in these areas.
The answer, as always, is that a committee is sitting—the Hunt Committee. I understand that it will report some time next year. These areas cannot wait till then. At present the distinction between these areas and development areas is must too sharp. I may be asked what I would do about it now. I believe that the Government should look at the question of the regional employment premium. I visited a firm which I will not name—not in my own constituency, but in a development area. The manager said, "I shall get £120,000 a year out of these premiums. We have done nothing to earn it. It will not affect the number of people we employ".
I will use an example in my own constituency. In Ellesmere Port the firm of Vauxhall employs between 10,000 and 11,000 people. They have been given substantial inducements to go to the area. Their plan is to increase their work force to 20,000, whatever the Government do. This firm will get a premium of 30s. a week for every employee. This seems to me to be a misuse of resources. Stanlow Refinery is there. It has been there for years and years. Yet the firm will get substantial sums of money. We cannot afford to distribute money in this way. Some of the money which it is proposed so to distribute should go to the areas of which I am speaking.
Many hon. Members, although they are not against new towns and realise that there must be tome new towns, are also aware of the tremendous costs. I believe that a small proportion of the cost of a new town spent in older towns might have

an equivalent effect. It would help substantially in improving communications, demolishing old buildings, getting rid of disused chimneys, and so on. At present the differences are much too sharp, with the result that areas with fine traditions and with a great deal of social infrastructure—churches, schools, hospitals, formed communities, fine operatives—are slowly deteriorating and slowly bleeding to death. There is a genuine despondency up there.
I therefore beg the Government, as will hon. Members of all parties, to reassure the textile trade and the footwear industry and to promise at once to work out a scheme of giving assistance to the areas which I have described, and of giving that assistance quickly.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. F. Blackburn: I am very glad to have the opportunity of following the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), who represents the other end of Cheshire. I shall have some words to say later in my speech about the textile industry, but, if the speech which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just made means that we have a new convert to help us in our fight for the industry, I welcome him to the band.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), who has disappeared, made a very typical speech, as I think everyone will agree. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is well known in the House, and his was exactly the type of speech we expected from him. What he ought to realise is that it is important at times to have some half tones. When everything is absolutely black, it loses a little of its effect.
I agree that a programme should be related to the problems facing the country. It does not mean that I consider that this programme is irrelevant if I say that I believe that action which has been taken earlier is likely to have more effect upon solving the problems facing us than the proposals contained in the Gracious Speech. I think that the most important part of the Gracious Speech is this passage:
The principal aim of My Government's policy is the achievement of a strong economy. This should combine a continuing surplus on the balance of payments sufficient to meet our


international obligations and to maintain the strength of sterling with a satisfactory growth of output and with full employment.
If we can achieve that, the great malaise which is attacking the country at present will disappear.
We are entering upon a new Session of Parliament when collectively, if not individually, we are not very popular throughout the country. I do not believe that the Conservative Opposition can take much comfort from what is happening. As I listened to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Hex-ham I thought that it was important that we should Id have a little less arrogance from the Opposition Front Bench and a little more humility, in view of their record. They cannot take much comfort from what is happening at present, because, in spite of their amazing success in recent by-elections, it is not that the people are turning to them. It is just a case of abstentions. Unless we can have a much improved state of affairs, there is a danger that at the next election a new Government will be selected by abstainers. It is important to realise what the position is. The people are saying to the Labour Government, "We are not satisfied with the present position". They are saying to the Conservatives, "You have not earned your passage back".
As I said earlier, there is a malaise in the country. Even the pacifists are becoming even more belligerent than they usually are. I do not know whether hon. Members are having the same complaints about university undergraduates as I am receiving, but many people seem to be thinking that it would be helpful if university students spent a little more of their time on their studies and a little less of their time on attacking the police. I am not sure whether these students are genuine pacifists, whether they are genuinely interested in the demonstrations they make, or whether they think that it is a bit of good fun.
It is a matter of which we must take considerable cognisance. I do not blame anybody for being emotional about the war in Vietnam. The people I cannot understand are those who say, "Stop shooting in Vietnam" and "Start shooting the Rhodesians". I can understand people being emotional about Vietnam, but I think that after they have had their

anti-American demonstrations they might say to the police, "The next punch-up takes place outside the Russian Embassy" because I believe that Russia bears a great responsibility for the continuation of this war. I genuinely believe that if Russia, as co-Chairman of the Geneva Convention, had been prepared to accept a recall of the Convention this trouble in Vietnam could probably have been stopped long ago.
When the question of supplying arms to Vietnam was mentioned in the House, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that Britain as co-Chairman of the Geneva Convention could not possibly supply arms to either side. I understand that Russia is the chief supplier of arms to North Vietnam. I applaud and congratulate Russia on the enormous fight she is making in the conquest of space, but I deplore the rather mischievous foreign policy she is pursuing, both in the Middle East and in Vietnam.
I wish to mention, too, the trouble that we are having with unofficial strikes. Take the dock strike. It is not only the dockers themselves who are suffering—although how they manage to live I do not know, since I cannot imagine that dockers are the sort of people who save a lot of money for an emergency—but we are all suffering because it will take us much longer to settle our economic problems in view of the exports which are being held up.
The Minister of Labour came in for a great deal of criticism because of his speech about the leaders of unofficial strikes. I believe the reaction of the leaders of the unions was very natural, because if they agreed that the position was as stated by the Minister of Labour, they would be admitting that they were being taken for a ride. However, whether there is evidence or not, it is true that there are Communists actively engaged whenever there is an unofficial strike.
Now I come to the railways. I find it very difficult to understand either the railway unions or the Railways Board. It is so vitally important, socially, economically and industrially, for this country to have a viable network of railways which is able to take off the roads a good deal of heavy traffic which is cluttering them up and ought not to be on the roads at all. I cannot understand how the unions have not recognised the


challenge and why at times they take action which might be to their own detriment and which might lose them their jobs.
Neither can I understand the attitude of the Railways Board. They are doing a good job with the main line services, but what are they doing to develop the local services? I cannot think of a single thing which they have done. In fact, it seems to me that they are doing their very best to drive passengers and freight away from the local services. A line has been reprieved in my constituency. In 1960 we were promised a halt to deal with the large overspill from Manchester. Can we have the halt? Oh, no. There must be a potential daily passenger traffic of at least 5,000 or 6,000 on that part of the line, but we cannot get the halt. I may have another word to say about railways later.
When we are considering these various problems, I think one should question whether what is said in the Gracious Speech is relevant or not. First of all, in this context, I should like to refer to Europe. I do not think there is great enthusiasm in this country for joining the Common Market. I do not think the people in this country will be thrilled and will get rid of their apathy because we have made an application to join the European Economic Community. Personally, I find it very humiliating that we are going round with our begging bowl asking to become a member of the club and being blackballed by France, a country which might not have existed in its present form if it had not been for the steadfastness of this country. I should like the Prime Minister to call back the noble Lord and any person who is hopping about the Continent with a begging bowl, and to say "We have shown our willingness to join. If we receive a unanimous invitation from the Six we will give consideration to it." But we shall not get any wild enthusiasm from the people in our country to join the Common Market.
The next matter to which I want to refer is the investment of public money in private industry. I do not understand why the Opposition are making all this fuss about it. They showed us the way. They started it.

Mrs. Renée Short: We should not be doing it then. We follow them too much.

Mr. Blackburn: That is one way of viewing our political problems. The Conservative Government invested money in B.P. and I do not think the country has lost through it. I just do not know what they are making all the fuss about. There is no reason why we should not have a little profit from the investment of public money.
I now come to the sentence in the Gracious Speech which states:
Legislation will be brought before you to provide for the better integration of rail and road transport within a reorganised framework of public control, to promote safety and high standards in the road transport industry, to strengthen the powers of local authorities to manage traffic, and to reorganise the nationalised inland waterways with special emphasis on their use for recreation and amenity.
The implementation of the latter part of that sentence would give a great deal of pleasure to people in my own part of the country. On the question of roads, after all these years and after all the millions of pounds which have been spent on new roads, I am wondering when the first penny is going to be spent in my constituency. It must be 10 years during which I have been trying to get from the Ministry of Transport, not the spending of money, but a decision on the line which a diverted trunk road will take. Until we get that decision the development of the town of Hyde in my constituency is held up. Going back several Ministers of Transport, I have been assured time after time that in a very short time the Ministry hopes to be able to let us have a final decision. I hope it will not be very long before it comes about.
I hope that the Bill which the Minister of Transport intends to bring forward will deal adequately and effectively with the matter of concessionary fares. It is absolute nonsense that in some parts of the country it is possible to have concessionary fares while in other parts it is not possible. Three local authorities in my constituency are members of a joint board. The fourth member of the joint board is outside the constituency. At present they are not able to grant concessionary fares because they cannot agree on the contributions to be made. According to the Act, their contributions


must be in accordance with the terms of amalgamation, based on how much they contributed then, how much they contributed to the losses and how much they take from the profits. There has been no agreement on that matter, and one local authority is not prepared to make its proper contribution. Therefore, there is no possibility of concessionary fares. Surely if we allow concessionary fares in one part of the country, it should be possible everywhere. I hope the Minister will solve that problem in the Bill which is to be brought forward.
Coming to the question of the textile industry, I wish to refer to dumping. I hope that the anti-dumping Bill which the President of the Board of Trade is to introduce will deal with a section of an industry as well as with an industry as a whole. I have a letter from the Board of Trade dated December, 1966, which states—dealing with the question of dumping of textiles—that it must be proved that it affects the whole of an industry. But the attack upon the textile industry by imports has been very clever. It has dealt with one section after another; having killed one section, it goes on to the next. We have, since then, had arguments with the Board of Trade, and we have got it to agree that action can be taken if a section of an industry is affected. This is a bit late in the day, and I hope that the anti-dumping Bill will make perfectly clear that anything affecting a part of an industry will be subject to proper anti-dumping protection.
I do not know why we have been unwilling to take more effective action in the past. Thinking particularly of the textile industry, I have always said that, if we want to help under-developed countries, the worst way to do it is to kill our own industry. Obviously, there are other and better ways of doing it. It is no good the Government thinking that they can get away from the textile industry's problem merely by passing a new anti-dumping Bill. If there is not a drastic reduction in the imports coming into this country, there will be no hope for the textile industry, and the people in the industry will not be satisfied. It is not that we have been doing worse than the Conservative Government did, but, rather, that the workers in the industry expected so much more from a Labour Government and, unfortunately, they have not had it.
I hope that the new President of the Board of Trade will have a good look at the industry. On a previous occasion, I have said that, if international agreements are killing one of our industries, there is something wrong with the agreements into which we have entered. Either they should be repudiated for the time being or they should be renegotiated. What is certain is that the present situation in the textile industry cannot continue. This is why I am glad that we have a further ally in the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Wirral.
Next, the question of the level of family allowances. They are not operated in the way that I myself would prefer, but we must all be grateful for an attack upon this serious problem. I should like to think that in every case the additional payment went to the children, not to bingo or the pub. In this connection, reverting to a Measure taken in the last Session which is now coming into operation, I should like to know why, under any Government, every time there is an increase in pensions there is not a comparable increase in supplementary pensions. Every time this matter arises, people come to us and say, "I thought you said there would be a 10s, increase in our pension. I am getting only 5s." Why should we have this problem every time, whatever the composition of the Government? I am sick and weary of it.
I do not believe that people will be wildly excited about reforms of the House of Lords. Reform is necessary, of course. The other place is an anachronism, and everyone expected that, at some time or other, reform would have to come about. No one could expect a Labour Government to carry on indefinitely with a built-in Conservative majority in the other place. Reform, therefore, is natural, but, unless people become greatly worked up about it and it becomes another case of Lords versus People, there will be no great excitement. What I find objectionable is when the Lords seek to introduce into a Bill an Amendment which has been thoroughly discussed by this House and rejected. I hope that that will be one of the problems finally solved.
I began by saying that I hoped that there would be less arrogance and a little more humility from the Opposition. If


they are not satisfied with the work which the Government are doing and the steps being taken, it is up to the Opposition to put forward alternative policies. Recently, in my constituency, the Conservatives readopted as their prospective candidate the man who fought the last election. The one who moved his readoption said that they were doing it because he did such a good job at the last election. As he achieved at the last election the lowest Conservative vote among all the opponents which I have had, I hope that he continues with the good work, although I shall not be the one to benefit by it.
I mention that matter because, in the course of his speech, the prospective candidate said that the official policy of the Conservative Party was stop-go. That is what he said, according to the report in the local paper. We all know that the Conservative Government managed to achieve it, the "go" occurring mysteriously just before elections, but it is the first time I have know that they had adopted it officially as their policy, to be explained on public platforms by members of their party.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it might have been a slip of the tongue and that when he said Conservative he meant Labour?

Mr. Blackburn: It is for the Conservative Party to answer. He is one of its prospective candidates, and he has said that that is the policy of his party.

Sir C. Osborne: Much better than "stop-stop", which is the Labour Government's policy.

Mr. Blackburn: The hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) always gets the wrong end of the argument.
I am sorry to have detained the House longer than I intended, and I know that there are many who wish to speak, but I have one more word to add. We are told in the Gracious Speech that
Other measures will be laid before you".
I beg the Government not to make them too many. All Governments make the mistake of trying to pass too much legislation. I think that a Labour Government are, if anything, more guilty even than

a Conservative Government. The success of a Government is not judged by the number of Acts of Parliament which are passed. Coming back to what I said earlier, I hope that the contribution to be made by the proposed Measures to the solution of the problems before us, plus what has been done in the past, will bring about that growth, expansion and full employment to which I referred.

5.38 p.m.

Sir Cyril Osborne: Speaking as a businessman rather than as a politician, I believe that our country's economic position is much more difficult and dangerous than the Government will admit. Whenever I hear the Prime Minister start to sneer about Suez, I always feel that he is frightened and anxious about his own policies. He did it yesterday. This morning, reporting on the Prime Minister's speech, the Daily Mail said:
Mr. Wilson can produce comedy like a rabbit out of a hat.
In view of the gravity of our situation, I should have thought that one licensed jester in the Cabinet was quite enough without the Prime Minister joining the game. Our national position is serious enough for the Prime Minister to deal with it seriously.
There is nothing in the Queen's Speech to warn the nation that we are living beyond our means. There is no explanation why the Government had to run to the "Gnomes of Zurich" during the Recess to borrow another £37½ million to tide us over our difficulties. Any self-respecting Government that manages the nation's affairs prudently need not go continuously either to the moneylender or the pawnbroker for help, as this Government are continuously doing. There is no hint of the rip-roaring inflation which I believe is just around the corner and which I fear could make National Savings Certificates and War Loan little better than worthless pieces of paper. These are the things I should like the Prime Minister to have dealt with.
I am bitterly disappointed with the Speech because it touches far too lightly on many of the world's problems that vitally affect the people. I should like to give one or two examples. Only two weeks ago U Thant published an alarming report which said that nuclear war


could destroy the whole human race. He said that a single 20-megaton bomb could kill 6 million New Yorkers or Londoners. Except for an article in The Times, no one took any notice of his warning and we went on blithely with our bingo and football pools as though it had nothing to do with us. In the Prime Minister's speech there was not one word about that dreadful threat.
We all know that China is the one nation that could force a nuclear war. The tragedy is that America has no representative in Peking. Russia's influence, unhappily, is nil, and we have in Peking a chargé d' affaires. If ever the Vietnam war is to be brought to an end China must be won over to the cause of peace, because she could contribute so much to a settlement in Vietnam. Therefore, we should have one of our top-ranking diplomats in Peking trying to exercise the utmost influence over the Chinese Government against nationalism in that country and to stop a drift towards a nuclear war. The Prime Minister had not a word to say on this issue.
A little time ago the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations in Rome issued a frightening report on possible world starvation. The Organisation, composed of responsible international people, calculated that half a billion people are hungry from the day they are born until the day they die, and said that another billion are only a little above that terribly low level. The Organisation's annual report just issued shows that food production in Africa, Asia and Latin America fell by 2 per cent. in 1965–66 and that there were 70 million more mouths to feed in those areas with that smaller amount of food. Nothing was said by the Prime Minister about this; he passes by like the Pharisee, as though it is nothing to do with him.
The F.A.O. also warned that the world wheat surpluses, which are mostly in Canada and the United States, fell from 34 million metric tons in 1961 to 12 million metric tons in 1965. Soon there will be no world surpluses anywhere. Half the world will then face outright starvation wherever there is a bad harvest, and in a world like that what hope is there of peace? The Prime Minister did not say one word on this vital issue, and there is nothing in the Queen's Speech about it.
In the 22 years since the war 65 new States have emerged. In the past five years 30 countries have ended in military dictatorships after their first experience of democracy. Generals and colonels have become the official receivers in political bankruptcy. They have found that democracy is a meaningless word to hungry people, and that without adequate food for the people political freedom as we envisage it becomes a mockery. President Nasser's greatest enemy is not Israel but the millions of people living in the Nile Valley whom he cannot adequately feed. When he was head of India, Nehru had to run like fury to stay where he was, because his people's fertility was greater than the fertility of his fields. The population of India is increasing by 1 million every month, and it was reported in the Indian Parliament some time ago that 270 million Indians were living on 3éd. a day. The Prime Minister did not mention that either. He joked. As the Daily Mail said, he was pulling rabbits out of the hat.
The Freedom from Hunger Campaign tries to deal with the problem of hunger in various parts of the world. If it does that today with a world population of 3·3 thousand million, what will the problem be like at the end of the century, when there are 7,000 million people to be fed? What will it be like in 70 years' time, when it is estimated that the world's population will reach 14,000 million? Behind these terrifying figures stands something that we should all recognise, the coloured people's revolt against the white man's supremacy, riches and better eating. That is the greatest problem facing mankind, but the Prime Minister did not condescend to mention it.
Our people may ask what all this has to do with them. It has far more to do with them than they realise. My charge against the Government is that they do not make the people realise this. The Government are at fault. We import half our food. If the food reserves of the world disappear there is a grave danger that the people of this country will have to go hungry. But nobody believes it, because the Government will not warn them. When the dockers were on strike recently I wondered how long it would be before the Government issued their emergency food ration books. I think


that they got pretty close to it. I understand that the books are published and ready.
Every other bite of food that people in this country enjoy is paid for by exports. Even if the world food surpluses were available for us to buy we could not get them unless our exports went out, and our exports cannot go if they are blocked in the docks. I asked the Prime Minister yesterday if he would deal with the dock problem and he said, in his usual slick manner, "Yes—later on." Of course, he forgot and made no comment on this issue.
It is against this background of appalling overseas poverty that the Government have acted in the meanest possible manner In the last three years the terms of trade have moved in our favour to such an extent that we are roughly £300 million better off. We are charging the poorer peoples of the world more for what we sell them and paying them less for the goods they sell us. We are pushing them down into deeper poverty so that we may have greater affluence.
In face of this it was unbelievably mean of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to cut our overseas aid this year by £20 million and say that we could not afford any more. It was despicably mean. The Prime Minister did not say a word about this either. That is a miserable £20 million out of a gross national product of roughly £30,000 million a year, out of which we spend about £3,000 million on drink, tobacco, gambling and amusement, and we say we cannot afford any more to help people who are desperately poor.
I believe that it is our duty to give far more in overseas aid to help the poorer countries help themselves by growing more food for themselves. Just now an hon. Member said that it was not a good thing to put them into an industrial position to compete with us. I agree. The best thing we can do for them is to help them grow more of the food that they themselves require.
But it is not only seed, fertilisers and tractors that they need. They need sufficient supplies of contraceptives, because unless their population growth is stopped no possible increase in food production can prevent them from breeding them-

selves into starvation. These are the things that the Prime Minister should have been talking about. He should have been telling the country what it will cost us to help the people who are in need.

Mr. Trevor Park: The hon. Gentleman has been talking about an extremely important and fundamental subject. I quite agree with him that we ought to make a greater contribution to help raise the living standards of people in under-developed parts of the world. Do I understand that he would be in favour of increased taxation for the purpose?

Sir C. Osborne: No, it is not necessarily the case that I would increase taxation. I would use the taxation that we have imposed in a better way. For example, it was stated in the House a few days ago that since the Labour Government came to power 6 million sq. ft. of office space has been built for temporary civil servants. That must cost a fortune. They are useless non-producers that we could do well without. Much of the money that the 6 million sq. ft. of office space cost would have produced better results if devoted to overseas aid.
I hope that hon. Members will listen to my next point because I know that they will not agree with it. It is against this sombre background of threatened starvation, appalling poverty and mounting population that I make a plea that I have made for 14 years, for stricter control of immigration. Of course the coloured peoples want to come and live here and will continue to want to do so while our standard of living is 10 to 30 times higher than their own. That is understandable. The Government estimate that already in this country there are 1 million coloured people, that by 1975 there will be 1¾ million and that by 1985 there will be 3½ million. These are Government estimates—not mine—given in this House. If this rate of progress continues, in the lifetime of our grand children there will be more coloured people than white in this country. I challenge any hon. Member who has opposed me so long on this to say that that is what he desires. I do not think that anybody desires it.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: For the sake of clarity, will the


hon. Gentleman say that when he talks about restriction of immigration he means coloured immigration only and does not extend it to other countries?

Sir C. Osborne: If the hon. Gentleman had been in the House long enough he would have known that for 14 years I have been explaining this. I have said that I would restrict immigration irrespective of race, colour or creed. I am on record for 14 years in saying that. There was a time when I had to plead with Hugh Gaitskell to give me a hearing to state my case. The problem is here, and the whole country is convinced of the rightness of the plea.
So in the lifetime of our grandchildren, it this rate of progress continues, there will be more coloured people than white. My post bag shows me that the vast majority of our people are utterly opposed to this. They want no more permanent settlers in this country. They fear, with some justification, that the race riots that have disfigured the larger American cities will be repeated here unless further immigration is stopped. They feel that the way to solve the problem of race relations is to stop this flood of immigration into our country.
In the first seven months of this year, so the Home Office tells me, 76,000 new immigrants arrived from India, Pakistan and West Indies alone, let alone the other parts of the old Empire, and let alone those who came in illegally. This is why I make my plea, and this is why our people want immigration stopped and want it stopped now. The English people are not anti-black. They simply want their country to belong to their grandchildren and not to be filched from them by the ever-growing army of immigrants. [Interruption.] The people of this country are crying out for something to be done. The hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), the Minister of Defence for Equipment, who is grinning at this, should go back to Barnsley and tell his voters that his policy is to have more black people in this country than white and see what they do to him. The Home Office says that by 1985 there will be 3½ million coloured people in this country. It should know more about it than the hon. Gentleman does.
By doing nothing, the Government are betraying this country and compelling the English t a commit race suicide. [Interrup-

tion.] This is true; it is no good hon. Members tut-tutting. For all these reasons I find the Address bitterly disappointing and the Government a cowardly failure.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: I always listen with a great deal of sympathy to the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) when he speaks on foreign affairs. His humanitarian approach when he talks about the hungry and starving millions of the East is to be admired and I think that few of us on this side of the House would dissent from what he has said about that. But, in a change of character rather like that of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, he becomes quite different on domestic affairs. His theme then is, "Flog 'em, hang 'em and bleach 'em."
I cannot help feeling that this is an approach unworthy of the vision which the hon. Member shows in other respects. He has spoken before about "rip-roaring inflation" and it is, of course, something that we all deplore, but I ask him what the Tories and their supporters, some industrialists and a large number of local councils are doing in order to restrain that inflation.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) quoted my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's speech at Cambridge and asked again which councils were behaving provocatively by imposing large increases in rents, thus challenging the anti-inflationary purposes of the Government. I can give the right hon. and learned Gentleman an answer now. Coventry Tory Council on 1st January proposes to raise council rents by 50 per cent., an increase completely unwarranted by the economic situation and the housing account.
Contrary to the hon. Member for Louth, I welcome the Gracious Speech as a valuable contribution by the Government towards fulfilling a Socialist policy and I believe its success can and will be measured by the hostility which it creates opposite. I specially welcome the measures of constitutional reform which are designed to remove certain anachronisms in our system.
It is right to challenge both the powers and the composition of the House of


Lords and I hope that, before long, we shall be able to form some idea of how the composition will be changed. Will it become simply a sort of house of patronage for defunct politicians, failed candidates and tamed, collaborative business men? I hope that that will not be the case, otherwise, under such a dispensation, the House of Lords would become nothing more than a place of damaging supineness.
I believe that, in that situation, the power of the Executive would be enhanced, because the House of Lords would be a place of ready-made patronage and the power of the legislature would be correspondingly diminished. I hope that, in contemplating the transformation of the House of Lords, we will consider the possibility of an elected second Chamber, possibly elected by a college of electors from municipalities, universities and the various regions.
I hope that we will also consider changing the name of the House of Lords in order to rid it of its snobberies. Why not call it a Senate? It could be the repository of the wisdom of the men and women who will be its members. I think that, in that way, we could have a House of Lords which would be a functional part of our constitution and not merely a decrepit and anachronistic survival.
I want to turn now to the question of full employment. I welcome the speech made by my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State today. I hope that the measures he has outlined for rehabilitating the development areas will be successful. The Prime Minister yesterday repudiated the idea of a pool of unemployment, suggesting that, in some way or other, by raising the level of unemployment in the development areas, the idea of a residual pool would somehow evaporate. I do not think that, in practice, it happens quite like that.
Eighteen months ago, an attempt was made to deflate the economy. The policies were at that moment determined by the Treasury. The result was that credit was switched off and, by the blind play of financial restrictions, we found that one of our leading export industries—the motor industry—was diminished in its capacity to produce and to employ, so that we had the paradox whereby a mea-

sure intended to shake out workers into productive industries and the export trade resulted in redundancy and unemployment. The result is that today we see the process of men unemployed for relatively long periods going back to the industry from which they had been "shaken out".
It seems that sometimes the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing—that the Department of Economic Affairs does not know what the Treasury intends and that the Board of Trade, caught between upper and lower millstones, is ground between the two, with the result that its policies are somewhat haphazard, and operative from one day to another without any general theme. I believe that this blind play of financial forces, creating conditions of economic recession and boom—the stop-go policies which disfigured Tory Governments in the past and which we certainly must not imitate—arise precisely from the fact that our economic policies are determined in the last resort by the Treasury.
We can all remember the years of Montague Norman's stewardship of the Bank of England. He asserted the clear doctrine that financial policy should be separated from economic policy. For example, after the First World War, he raised the bank rate to 7 per cent. and promptly there were 1 million unemployed. He said that financial policy was to preserve the value of the £ and that the industrial consequences which flowed from it had nothing to do with him.
We must not follow policies of that kind. We must integrate the policies of the three Ministries concerned with the economy, and here I reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), in interrupting the Prime Minister yesterday, when he rightly deplored the speech made by Sir Leslie O'Brien in Rio de Janeiro.
It is the fashion nowadays to use euphemisms to veil a disagreeable situation and Sir Leslie spoke of the need for a certain amount of "unused capacity". That is different from what the Prime Minister said yesterday. My right hon. Friend did not talk about "unused capacity". On the contrary, he suggested that, in development areas, as in the areas of what have sometimes been called


"over employment" there should be an evening out of unemployment and he made no question of there being a need for unused capacity.
The technique of using euphemisms to cover difficult situations is not new. It was used by Montague Norman in order to justify the hardships of the recession in the 1920s and 1930s. When he wanted to reduce the wages of the miners he spoke of "fundamental adjustments" that had to be made, and the "moderate sacrifices" which were being called for.
Incidentally, it is striking that, whenever there is a need to try to adjust the economy, someone will produce a term like "shake out" in order to cover up what is meant by a policy designed to reduce consumption and that the reduction in consumption is inflicted on that section of the population least able to bear it. I hope that, on this side of the House at any rate, we shall have nothing to do with policies of that kind.
The question which occupies most of us at the moment is that of Britain's application to join the European Common Market. I regretted to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) speaking about our negotiator "trundling" about the capitals of Europe with a begging bowl in his hand. That is a gross distortion. Perhaps I can recall the actual words of the Minister of State. I recall them the more easily because he was quoting something I said. He said:
We are applicants—not suppliants.
I hope that that will be the theme of our application.
The policy of President de Gaulle, through M. Couve de Murville and M. Pompidou, is to force us into the posture of suppliants. They have gone out of their way to advertise what they regard as our economic weakness. They have offered us gratuitous and patronising advice about sterling. In short, they have talked down Britain's prestige in the world. We must be very clear about the purposes behind some of the sophisticated speeches which have been made by French spokesmen in recent times. One day we are described as the Trojan Horse of the United States of America; the next, perhaps less flatteringly, we are described as a kind of tin can attached to the horse's tail.

The net effect of the manner in which our application has been received has not been to improve the image of Britain in the world.
When we first took office, the Prime Minister said, "We now sit at the top table". Owing to some of the reactions of the French Government to our application we must recognise that their aim at the moment is not to see us sitting at the top table, but to demote us below stairs. It is right that some or us should react vigorously to any attempt of that kind.
Although the balance was very even, I personally think it could be argued that our application was premature. Indeed, quoting from a letter which I wrote to The Times last summer from Paris, when some of my hon. Friends, for whom I have great regard, were urging us to keep up the momentum, I said:
May I suggest that our assesment of 'early' should be determined not by the momentum of the ministerial visits to Europe but by the temperature of the European Club. Taken in Paris, it seems to me cool; and I believe that a precipitate application would result either in a blackball or in a humiliating and chilling wait on the doorstep.
That was the view which some took last summer and I accept that there were valid and countervailing arguments in favour of application. But, without disrespect to anyone, momentum is only of value when you know exactly where you are going.
The Gadarene Swine were no doubt proud of their momentum, and cheered each other on with the slogan, "We must not lose momentum". I would have preferred a much more careful preparation of the ground in France before we applied. President de Gaulle's inflexible position was already known. He adopted a Cartesian attitude and, like every person who acts on principle, given the premise the end must be known. I spoke about it at the time, and it is clear that President de Gaulle will not voluntarily change his mind in connection with our application to join the Common Market, he being set on keeping Britain out.
Frenchmen whom I have spoken to have differed slightly from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu), who has done an enormous amount for Anglo-French relations and who knows France well. I differ from him slightly in saying that I cannot believe we will enter the Common


Market within two years. That is a timetable which is much too precipitate. I do not believe we will be successful.
Having said that, I should like to add that even the most autocratic President must be sensitive to public opinion. I think that we should go out of our way to revive our friendship with France and not give way to petulance, embracing all Frenchmen in a universal condemnation. I am not recommending a position of obeisance. Having seen the noble Lord the Minister of State advocating Britain's case, I should like to say how much I have admired his manner and how much I have respected his advocacy of Britain. The noble Lord has taken up a firm position, and he will have the support of all those in the House who are in favour of joining the Common Market.
The French—and de Gaulle is no exception—have no sympathy with deference. I think it proper that in our negotiations with France we should demonstrate not how much they would gain by British entry, but how much they would lose by our failure to join.
We ought to remember that there are many Frenchmen on the Right and on the Left who are devoted friends of Britain. I have spoken to men like Mitterrand and Mollet, the Left-wing leaders, and they are enthusiastic about British entry. They both say that they have certain technical objections which they would put forward, but they add that they put them forward in order to overcome them. I believe that they are not insuperable objections.
On the Right, among the Conservatives, we have men like Giscard d'Estaing who, although a member of the Gaullist majority, is also in favour of British entry into the Common Market. We should, I think, stretch out our hands to those people and try and renew the entente cordiale in a modern form.
History does not stand still. The Franco-German treaty is accumulating in vigour. There are massive exchanges of young men and women students between France and Germany. In France today—and this is something which we have failed to recognise—there is a whole new generation growing up whose sympathies are polarised towards Germany rather than Britain. In the past we have cut down our budget in relation

to information services, such as the British Council, and we have lost an enormous amount of ground in France because we have failed to communicate the picture of Britain which the French ought to have.
The day before the Queen's Speech a French journalist representing L'Express, a paper which commands a very large readership in France, came to see me. He told me that he wanted to write an article about Britain. I asked him what his theme was, and he said that his theme was, "Is Britain decadent?". I asked him whom he wanted to see, and he replied, "The Prime Minister and Miss Mary Quant". I believe he has seen Miss Mary Quant. For good measure he also told me that he has seen Mr. George Woodcock. I wish that I could have shown him then a copy of the Queen's Speech, because he would have seen that the reality of Great Britain should not be sought in the King's Road among the "pot" smokers or the Cambridge undergraduate rowdies. The reality of Britain is to be seen in the energy and purpose of the whole nation, and I recommended him, when he told me that his inquiry was to be limited to London, to travel through the provinces and he would there see that the charge of decadence, once before levelled against Great Britain, has no basis in fact.
The Queen's Speech shows a Britain determined to get on with the job, now going ahead to adjust the economy, and releasing the productive resources of the nation. It shows that certainly in this Government there is no room for transcendental meditation of the type practised by the right hon. Maharashi, the Leader of the Opposition, and his colleagues. On this side of the House, in the Prime Minister's words, we mean business, and I believe that the Queen's Speech proves it.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: The sense of purpose and reality which the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) has described can be found in the countryside of Britain, but I did not find much glimmer of it in the Gracious Speech, as he claimed. I ask him to return to the key paragraph in the Gracious Speech which has been


quoted several times today already. It says:
The principal aim of My Government's policy is the achievement of a strong economy…a continuing surplus on the balance of payments…a satisfactory growth of output and…full employment.
This would be an encouraging declaration if we could have any faith in it at all, but there are no proposals later in the Gracious Speech which have any relevance to the fulfilment of those aims. Indeed, the proposals which follow mostly point the other way. The so-called integration of road and rail transport will stifle competition and freedom of choice which are critical to industry. The so-called Industrial Expansion Bill, with its deceptive and gimmicky title paves the way to State intervention in industry. The Prime Minister's explanation yesterday confirmed the fear that it is little more than a device to help Socialism to scale the commanding heights.
Yesterday, I was entertained by the Prime Minister's comparison of the Government with a merchant bank. The taxpayer who puts up the cash is unlikely to be satisfied in the end with a system of merchant banking by the State which gives low priority to profitability. Nor will industry be much impressed by the individual or collective commercial experience of the merchant adventurers on the Treasury Bench.
This statement of economic aims early in the Gracious Speech appears now to be an annual ritual. We have had it all before. Indeed, this part of the Gracious Speech is a condemnation of the Government. Where is the strong economy? Where is the surplus on the balance of payments? Do three years of stagnation represent a satisfactory growth of output? Do the Government seriously believe that the chant of full employment will cheer the lengthening dole queues? This, of course, is a declaration of intent and I accept that. But these conditions do not exist in Britain and the fact that they do not exist is a confession of failure.
The Government cannot expect the nation to pay much attention to this declaration of aims. No one believes this sort of thing any longer. The Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends are like a row of grandfather clocks which have constantly struck 13—casting growing doubt on their subsequent utterances. In February, 1965, the Prime Minister

declared that the economic crisis was now "virtually over". In the Gracious Speech seven months later, the aim of the Government was to "develop a soundly based economy". In the Gracious Speech in April, 1966, there was a promise of action to "stimulate progress in implementing the National Plan"—and we all know what happened to that.
Then we had the measures of July, 1966, and in November, 1966, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the nation on television that the measures were having the effect which they were intended to have. Now, just a year later, the Gracious Speech refers to the promotion of an effective policy for productivity, prices and incomes, and so condemns the Government yet again.
This failure by the Government to manage the economy is of major concern to the development areas about which the First Secretary was speaking earlier, because it is the strength of the total economy of the nation which matters to the development areas in the end. We too often lose sight of that. We will never get prosperity in Scotland, or Wales, or the North-East, or the South-West, unless the total economy of Great Britain is sound.
I understand that we are to hear some revelations later from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs. I understand that there may be some statement about action to help the development areas further. It is a great pity that we did not have some news of all this at the beginning of today's debate, for that would have helped us to consider the Government's proposals—if there are any—with a better background of information. However, I look forward with interest to what the right hon. Gentleman will have to say and I hope that it will be meaningful and effective.
I must confess that I was not much encouraged by the First Secretary's observations about development areas when earlier today he called attention in particular to the programme of advance factories. Of course, advance factories are welcome, but their significance in the industrial scene should not be exaggerated. I get a little tired of the way in which the Government pour out this claptrap and sing the same old tune time


and time again about advance factories. There have been a lot of advance factories for Scotland in the programmes announced in the last three years and these factories have already provided just over 600 jobs, but this is not very many against an unemployment figure of more than 80,000. The factories have provided some jobs and of course will provide more as they develop and as tenants are found for empty factories, but they do not make much of a dent in the total unemployment figure.
We then had the right hon. Gentleman's statement that there had been a large dispersal of Government offices and what he described as official and non-official organisations. He went on to say that Scotland had had her fair share. I am very glad to hear it. I had begun to think that a fair share of nought was nought, because I do not know where these Government offices are. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what Government offices have been moved to Scotland by the present Government? I know of course that there is a larger bureaucracy and therefore many more officials in Scotland. For example, we have one building full of people collecting Selective Employment Tax and another building full of people busy paying back Selective Employment Tax, but that is not the sort of Government employment to which I am referring.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give a list of the Government offices which have been deployed into Scotland from the South by actions taken by the present Government? I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to tell me about the Post Office Savings Bank for which transfer the Government took credit in the Scottish White Paper of about 18 months ago because that, as the right hon. Gentleman will recall, was a decision of the Conservative Government and not of the present Administration. Will he give a list of the official organisations which have been moved to Scotland as a result of governmental intervention? Will he also tell us how much new office building there has been in Scotland? If he gives us this information, we shall be able to judge the contribution which these actual or alleged developments have made to the Scottish economy.
The major concern in Scotland is the actual level of unemployment. I welcome the fact that the underlying seasonal trend has improved in the last month. Of course I remember that the underlying seasonal trend has been geting worse steadily for months past. While it is reasonable to call attention to and to welcome this improvement, the Government ought not to give the impression of making too light of the serious and worsening position in Scotland.
It did not help the Prime Minister's reputation in Scotland—or what is left of it—when he spoke on television the other day. I myself saw a news bulletin on television when it was announced that unemployment in Scotland had gone up and a few minutes later we saw the Prime Minister assuring people in Scotland that unemployment had gone down. There appeared to be a conflict which increased the cynicism which the people of Scotland have about all declarations by the Prime Minister.
There is little triumph in the Government saying, as they now say, that unemployment in Scotland has not gone up by as much as it might have done. In effect they are saying to the unemployed man in Scotland that he should not worry, because unemployment in Scotland has gone up by only 48 per cent. whereas in other parts of Britain it has gone up more. The argument that unemployment is being spread more evenly is not very impressive. There is not much virtue in spreading more misery more evenly, and yet that is precisely what is now happening.
When the Prime Minister speaks about Scottish unemployment, I hope that he will make it clear that the level is far too high and must come down. He will remember that when he previously visited Scotland in March he declared that a level of 3·6 per cent. unemployed was intolerable. I hope that he will now reflect that the level today is 3·8 per cent., and worsening.
In all our discussions about the development areas, we tend naturally to concentrate on factories and industrial development. I trust that we will pay more attention than previously to areas lying outside the industrial belt, where there is little manufacturing industry. In Scotland over half the working population is engaged in the service industries.


The proportion of the population engaged in these industries outside the industrial belt is very much higher. It is these very people who are discriminated against by the absurd Selective Employment Tax.
I wish that the Secretary of State for Scotland would stop pretending that all is well and that the S.E.T. is a success. It is doing harm to constituencies such as mine which depend very largely on the service industries. It will do more serious harm in the winter as people are laid off because of the pressure of S.E.T. on the service industries.
This discrimination against the service industries will be heightened by the regional employment premium which makes matters worse for the service industries. The greatest help to development in Scotland would be the immediate removal of the S.E.T., or the removal of the tax 'luring the winter months when it will have its gravest effects, and the switching of the £40 million promised by way of regional employment premium from what amounts to a wages subsidy to investment in housing and modern communications, and to the total improvement of the infrastructure, which should he the most important ingredient in any regional development policy.
Where reform is needed, there is no mention of it in the Gracious Speech. Instead we have the proposed reform of another place, although that will not cheer the unemployed in Scotland very much. The advance publicity given to this proposal, which is surely unusual for any proposal in any Gracious Speech, shows the way in which this questionable Measure will be handled by the Government. Quite obviously it is to be treated as a diversionary activity during the months of discontent ahead. We have no proposal for the reform of the social services.
The First Secretary was quite right to refer to the reform of the organisation of social work in Scotland. Perhaps he did not grasp the fact that this has nothing to do with the social services in the sense that we refer to them as being in need of reform. I welcome this proposal which I imagine will implement the Kilbrandon Report, although I hope that the Government will give us time to discuss the Bill with our constituents, and time to debate the Report before the Bill

is published, because it is not entirely a non-contentious proposal.
There is no sign of any social measure to assist poverty, yet the First Secretary was speaking of social measures to assist poverty today. Family allowances are to go up, but that is not identifying and helping true poverty. The First Secretary spoke very movingly about the need to identify people in hardship and of his experiences in Scotland. He went on to say that someone ought to write a book about it, and I agree that it would be very helpful. It was discouraging to hear him in the course of this take a swipe at the market research conducted by the detergent manufacturers, because this is yet another manifestation of the contempt that this Government has for commerce, for competition, and for the whole process of selling the goods we produce.
The greatest problem facing the nation and the development areas is the fact that we have lost the sense of purpose and the feeling of incentive which create the conditions in which we could expect a return to the growth of the economy, which this Government have abandoned. Although there are some welcome minor proposals in the Gracious Speech, none of these has any relevance to the primary need for a return to growth, and it is a return to growth, in the total economy, which will provide the advance for which the development areas and the whole nation so critically looks.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Before I move to the main points of my speech, I want to take up a remark made by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur). This is to deal with the unemployment figures in Scotland. It is all very well for the Conservative Opposition to come to the House, as it does time after time, giving the impression that it is so deeply concerned with the whole question of unemployment and giving the impression that it alone has any sort of alternative. The figures I would like to give bear out the point that I am making.
In 1962 there were 136,000 unemployed in Scotland. Today there are 82,000. I am not saying that this is right. I have been a severe critic of the Government over their economic policy and I shall continue to be, because I take the view


that one man unemployed is a crime—82,000 is an even greater crime Let us get the position in perspective, and let us understand that the stories which we hear from the other side about the serious unemployment problem completely ignores the fact that under Conservative Governments unemployment figures in the under-developed areas were much higher than they are now.
This is equally true of my own area of Merseyside. We now have 27,000 unemployed over the whole of Merseyside, and this is a figure which I deplore. Under the Conservatives in 1962 there were 32,000 unemployed.

Earl of Dalkeith: The hon. Gentleman has said that we have to bear these figures in mind, and perhaps he will do so by remembering that over the last few years there has been record-breaking emigration from Scotland to the tune of something like 120,000 Scots. If he remembers this and adds it to the unemployment figure at present he will see what the situation really is.

Mr. Heffer: I am not denying that there has undoubtedly been emigration from Scotland, but I would point out that in areas like Merseyside, Scotland, Northern Ireland and elsewhere, where there has been severe unemployment over the years, there has been a constant flow of workers away to the South-East seeking employment. It has not intensified under this Government, it has merely continued.
This afternoon I put a question to my right hon. Friend the First Secretary. My argument was that if we have a deflationary policy, irrespective of what we do about pushing new industries into the development areas, such efforts will be defeated by a deflationary policy. Even if one has put a whole series of industries into under-developed areas, a deflationary policy in itself creates unemployment, even among the new industries channelled into such areas. This is what has happened in Scotland, in Merseyside, in South Wales and elsewhere. If we are to solve this problem, we must continue to pursue the policy of channelling new industries. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, who is responsible for these matters, on the Front Bench. I hope that he and other mem-

bers of the Front Bench will tell the Cabinet that its efforts will be stymied unless we have a fundamental change in our economic strategy and policy. We cannot continue in the same direction in which we have been travelling in the past.
Recently we had a Government reshuffle—a very interesting reshuffle. One of my hon. Friends was put in charge of the Department of Economic Affairs with the job of stimulating the economy to help to solve the problems of the under-developed areas. When the Prime Minister made the statement about reshuffling the Government, he said that great emphasis was to be laid on solving the unemployment problem. That was the statement made on the Tuesday. On the Friday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer went on Welsh television and said that we would go through a very difficult period this winter, that unemployment would grow and that even after we had got over the hump of Christmas it would be still a long time before we were able to get rid of unemployment altogether.
I put a question to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench—and I am very sorry that no senior Minister is present to hear it: what is the economic policy? Who was right—the Prime Minister on the Tuesday, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Friday? The House has a right to know precisely what is the economic strategy of the Government. Who is determining our economic policy—the Department of Economic Affairs, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, or the Treasury under the leadership of or perhaps dominated by the Chancellor, or himself being dominated by the officials of the Treasury?
The only remark in the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Hex-ham (Mr. Rippon) with which I agreed was when he said that the greatest reform which we need is the reform of the Treasury rather than of the House of Lords. It is time that we rooted out the orthodox, traditional conservative thinking which has dominated the economic affairs of this country for so long. Let us make a start with the Treasury. I am all for rooting out the conservatives in the Treasury. Let us begin right now. I suggest that we go a step further and abolish the Treasury altogether.
Let us have one Department concerned with the economic affairs of this country, and let us have it through the Department of Economic Affairs. That is a revolutionary proposition which will shake the foundations of the Civil Service and of this country, but if we are to have a positive economic policy in future then something revolutionary must be done about our economic thinking and policies. I am glad that we now have a senior Minister present, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, who can hear what is being said about our economic policy. [An HON. MEMBER: "Say it again."] I have said that a bit more should be done than is being done about our economic policy. My right hon. Friend might not be too happy with that statement, but that is what we should be doing.
I did not intend to speak for long about economic matters, but I should like to take up one further point about the economy. I described the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Labour Party conference as a typical speech which filled us all with a warm glow. He always fills us with a warm glow. He said that we could not have Government or economic policies by gimmick and that those who were putting forward alternative economic policies were more or less putting forward a series of gimmicks. Import controls—a gimmick, no doubt. The idea of controlling the outflow of private capital to a greater extent—perhaps another gimmick. The idea that we should perhaps sell some of our portfolio investment: Shonfield had that idea, but it is, no doubt, a gimmick.
If these are gimmicks, what have we been having up to now? I ask my hon. Friends to stop answering the critics of the present economic strategy by suggesting that the alternatives put forward are merely gimmicks. These are serious proposals which, had they been put into operation instead of the July measures, would have created a different position from the position which we have now.
I move away from economic matters to saying a few words about industrial problems. We have had a series of fairly big industrial disputes. One is still going on in London. There was the Liverpool dock strike involving over 9,500 men. I

listened with very great care to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. I listened for the new dynamic leadership which we were to get from the Opposition. I listened carefully for the alternative policies which were to be put forward. I did not hear them. What I did hear was that if the Conservatives, by some mischance, ever regained office they would be pretty tough with the trade unions. I wish to tell the Conservatives and anyone else who is prepared to listen that it is not a question of being tough in order to solve our industrial problems. It is a question of being even more flexible than we have been.
Take the Liverpool dock strike. These lads were called irresponsible. It was said that they were holding the country to ransom and that they were economic saboteurs. Then this week we had the document written by Mr. Jack Scamp. He made three very important points about the conditions on Merseyside. He started by saying:
Earnings on Merseyside are rather low. In recent years they have generally been between £2 and £3 a week lower than the national average for dock workers…
I should have thought that that was something which would make the dockers on Merseyside a bit angry. I should have thought that they would be concerned about getting £2 or £3 less than the national average for dockers.
Secondly, Mr. Scamp says that in order to receive wages which are £2 or £3 lower than those paid anywhere else Liverpool dockers work more overtime than dockers anywhere else and even get double time for overtime, but, in spite of the fact that they do six or seven hours a week more overtime than dockers elsewhere, they draw £3 less.
His third point was:
It follows from (a) and (b)—and other evidence confirms this—that earnings from incentive payments on Merseyside tend to be small.
If I were a Communist or a Trotskyist, I should be very happy on the Merseyside docks, because that would be fruitful ground for causing difficulties. Why not, if the conditions of the workers are worse than in any other area?
But this strike was not caused by Communists and Trotskyists, but arose because of the grievances outlined in


this document, and that is why 9,500 dockers went on strike for almost six weeks in Liverpool without one picket being needed at the dock gates. That is the real cause of Merseyside's industrial problem, not a bunch of Communists or Trotskyists.
There are three villains in the piece and none of them is the workers. The first is the employers of Merseyside who kept the workers' conditions at this level. Second, unfortunately, are some of the local union officials, who did not fight sufficiently for their membership, and third, also unfortunately, is the Ministry of Labour, which did not send Jack Scamp to Liverpool until four weeks after the strike began. I want to know why. They cannot say, "We did not know," because I wrote to the Minister four months before the dispute and told him that it would take place unless the workers' problems were settled.

Sir C. Osborne: And what did he say?

Mr. Heffer: We need to revise our industrial relations, not by legislation which will hamper the unions and possibly good workers because they go on strike—official or unofficial—nor by industrial courts. That is not the answer. The first thing which we must do is multiply the number of Jack Scamps. Whenever a dispute takes place, whether it is official or unofficial, these conciliators must be sent to the area immediately, get down to the job from the first day and try to get a quick settlement.
The second thing is to give the workers an identification with their industry by way of decision-making. The workers' greatest problem today is that they are never involved in decision-making, but are like the factory machines, cogs in the wheels. I would like forms of democratic management eventually, but as a first step workers' committees should be established in every factory, dock and industry, to enable the workers to take real decisions. They should not be merely committees to whose points the employers listen without acting. These are two of the most important things which we should do in industrial relations.
The third thing which I want to see is more schools in industrial relations

established through the universities. There is a business school in Manchester. It is important that management should get better instruction—they need it—but it is also important that the shop steward, the promising lad from the factory floor, should have the opportunity to attend an industrial relations school so that he can understand more about the industry, his union, management and industrial relations, to give him a different approach——

Mr. Park: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that courses for shop stewards are organised by the Workers' Educational Association, by university extramural departments and by the T.U.C. What is required, surely, is an expansion of this work and the provision of a greater amount of finance for it by the Government.

Mr. Heffer: I am aware of this, but we have run into a number of difficulties, which I am sure my hon. Friend will agree are real ones. One is that the T.U.C. is not happy about financial assistance from the Government for its work, since it wishes to remain separate from the Government. This is understandable. While I should like to see the expansion of the W.E.A. and T.U.C. activities this would not be the answer in itself.
No one will suggest, I hope, that I want to adopt everything which happens in the United States of America, but at least most of their large universities have schools in industrial relations, which are extremely important. The only snag about the United States is that far too many lawyers have got in at other levels, creating many other problems in industrial relations. We should not adopt that trend, but I do favour the expansion of industrial schools.
The problems for industry today are no worse than they have ever been. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister effectively dealt with this argument yesterday. The problems have always been there, because of the fact that there are two sides to industry. This is not merely a question of personal relationships but of how much one side gets and how much the other will give. Even with the best Moral Rearmament Shop steward and boss, if one wants more than the other is prepared to give, there will be a dispute, and personal relationships or


Moral Rearmament principles will not solve that problem.
Something much more fundamental is required and I have suggested the lines which we should follow to deal with these problems practically. I have been in the trade union movement and industry almost all my life and I know the problem which exist in building, on the docks, in ship repairing and ship building and in the furniture trades, because it is in these industries that I have worked.
The important thing is to understand the basic causes of any dispute, to come to grips with them quickly and to settle them in the speediest manner along the lines I have suggested. This should have been done in the Liverpool docks, the trade union should have learned the lesson of the San Francisco docks, where the longshore men's union sold their rule book, bat at what a price—so that the dockers received the best deal which any dockers in the world had ever received. It is more promptness, it is more understanding which are needed. It is not a question of control of the workers and disciplining the workers but a question of understanding their problems and getting to grips with their grievances and ensuring they are dealt with in the speediest possible way.

7.0 p.m.

Captain Walter Elliot: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has made a characteristically straight-speaking speech and he has posed a good many pertinent points to the Government who, no doubt, will give them some thought. I am not going to follow him closely because, in this wide-ranging debate, I want to look at a different aspect of our problems, though there are just a couple of his points which I should like to take up.
The first is about identification of the workers with decisions being made. I myself and, I am sure, other Members on this side of the House thoroughly understand that point of view. I have been one of those who have been fortunate enough, if it may be described that way, to be able to go to Sweden to study that country's system, and my opinion is that their prices and incomes policy, as we understand it, is no better than ours. I saw a Minister describe

the other day how the people at the top get together and decide what industry can afford, as if they all behaved perfectly reasonably afterwards. In fact they pay not the slightest attention to that. All down the scale they bargain amongst one another, and finally come to an agreement. What they do have, however, all down the line is close and constant consultation, and I believe that, if Sweden has a successful system, that is the secret of its success.
The other point I should like to take up with the hon. Gentleman is his use of the words "get tough" with the unions. They are not ours. They are his. Our legislation, should it come about, is certainly not designed to hamper the unions, but to help them. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition used the words, but certainly the "Shadow" Minister of Labour at Brighton said "strengthen the unions". So I should like to correct the hon. Gentleman on that point.
I listened to the First Secretary this afternoon very closely and only once, I think, did I prick up my ears. He used the words—I hope I took them down correctly—that "We also have to speak in terms of the quality of life we seek". I said I pricked up my ears because that was something new. But then the First Secretary hastily recovered himself and went on to cover the old problems with the old observations. I concede that they are old observations, not only from his side of the House but from the whole House. Apart from the party political points he made I agreed with much of what he said, but just as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), re-referring to the Gracious Speech, said it would not produce a wave of enthusiasm throughout the country, so I do not believe the speech of the First Secretary would do that either.
I would like to look at what I think is wrong. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) referred to our malaise, but he did not try to identify it except in the particular issues with which he was concerned. We have our customary troubles—the rate of growth is too low, our overseas expenditure is too high, we have too many strikes, monopolies are a problem, we have rising prices and


rising taxation. These, of course, are very serious and practical problems, but we have debated them ad nauseam over the years and we are debating them now, and, no doubt, we shall go on debating them, but the problems are still with us.
One reason for that is that these problems which we debate so closely are symptoms and not the disease. So the question is, what is the disease? We are told that straws show which way the wind blows, and I believe that, if one can call it a straw, the brain drain is one. The First Secretary mentioned it and told us—we are always being told—that these highly trained professional men and skilled tradesmen go because they can get more money in some other country, and, as we know, in America in particular. That is true to a certain extent, and I think it is more true of the older ones than of the younger ones, because I believe that the young man with exceptional energy, ability and initiative, if he has such qualities, will look at the prospects and not at the immediate gain, and I think he assesses them today not necessarily as his prospects in this country but the prospects of the country and thinks they are not good.
We often pride ourselves that self-criticism, which we are very prone to indulge in, is a good thing, and perhaps it is to a certain extent. We are certainly getting a tremendous amount of self-criticism from both sides of the House in this debate. We get volumes of it as the months pass both from people at home and people abroad until finally, I believe, the feeling spreads over the country, as it did, in my memory, in the 'thirties, that this country is becoming run down, we are living on borrowed money, there is no future, and the people are unable or unwilling to retrieve the position.
That impression can be shown, if we have the will, to be utterly false. I would quote some words from the Leader of the Opposition in his speech yesterday:
There is nothing in the present situation, which we have endured for three years, which cannot be put right by the British people themselves, given the opportunity, given the willpower and the determination, given the encouragement and given confidence in them-

selves—nothing whatever."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1967; Vol. 753, c. 24.]
I agree with that, and probably most people in the House would agree with it also, but how are we to achieve it? It may sound old-fashioned, but I believe that we can achieve it by rekindling a pride in this country and a faith in its future. I hope I am not a kill-joy—I do not think I am—but if I had my way then at home I would clean the country up, not only from the proliferation of vicious habits.
I believe this country, to a certain extent, is being honeycomber by ratholes inhabited by rats who are there only to make money. They masquerade under other guises, but that is why they are there—to make money. Crime of all sorts flourishes. I am sorry that there is nothing in the Gracious Speech about the Police Forces and measures to strengthen them. I believe that we must look closely at what is called the permissive society and the individuals who want that permission. It is one thing to permit something if, after careful consideration, we think it right to do so. It is quite another thing to be pushed and to have to give way because we will not resist.
May I give one example which occurred before the time of the present Government? I refer to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1963. I confess that I voted in support of it. I believe that both sides of the House supported it. But the argument given to us, which I accepted, was that gaming was taking place, that the police could not stop it, that the people wanted to do it, that it was bringing the law into disrepute—arguments used about many other matters—and that therefore we must legalise it, which we did. What is the result? A vast increase in gambling, and the crooks have moved in. I am glad to see from the Gracious Speech that the Government are to look into it, and I hope that we shall see strong action. The leaders of our society—and that includesus—must stand up and say that anything will not go, and they must provide the means to see that their will is enforced.
My right hon. Friend mentioned today, in another sphere of public life, criticism by Lord Radcliffe about the declining standards of public administration. I


believe that by one means or another we have to restore the sense of discipline and restrain t which used to be the hallmark of the ordinary Briton. If we do that, it will operate on the many facets of our national life.
We must look closely at our education system. I am not at all certain that for many of our children the present system is right. We must look at the rôle of the teaching profession. A contented teaching profession, proud of their vocation, is vital. The Gracious Speech mentions measures to ensure the supply of teachers, which no doubt are very necessary, but today we have hundreds of thousands of teachers, and practically every one I know has a grumble. That is wrong and ought to be corrected. If all this were done and much else I hope pride in the country would grow once more.
I turn to my second point, a faith in our future, which is bound up with our rôle in the world. We should start by taking a pride in our past. I will give only one example—our colonial record. The way people talk today, both in this country and elsewhere, one would think that in our colonial history we behaved like criminals. No doubt we were not perfect, but over large areas of the world we brought peace and a very great measure of justice, and we can be proud of that. I was delighted when the Foreign Secretary took to task that Committee in the United Nations for its attitude towards our decolonisation. I wish that he were much stronger. I hope that next time he will tell them that unless they mend their ways we shall have nothing further to do with them but will carry on our policy as we have been carrying it on in the past.
We should also cease underrating the part which the country can play in the world. We are told that the problems are so big and the country so small that there is nothing that we can do about them. But we were small in comparison with Spain in the Elizabethan times and in comparison with France and the Continent in Napoleonic times. We have always been small, but we have always been able to exert an influence out of all proportion to our size because of the quality of this nation, and we can do it today. It may be that through lack of finance and resources we have to withdraw from certain parts of the world, but

we should not withdraw morally from those areas.
I will quote two examples to show what I mean. There are very serious and deep arguments about the manner in which America is fighting the war in Vietnam. But at the time of the elections in South Vietnam a few months ago, I read a report from The Times correspondent, which I assume was a truthful report, that the rate of murders and abductions of South Vietnam Government officials by the Communists had risen to about 150 a week. At about the same time in Hong Kong a radio artist had petrol bombs thrown over him and was burned to death because his broadcasts irritated the Communists, who also issued a list of six members of the Hong Kong Administration whom they intended to kill. These methods are a hallmark of Communism if it wants to seize power and thinks that it can get away with these methods. We should say without compromise that we are against them.
I believe that our future lies in Europe, whether we call it a Common Market or not. That is inevitable. But I do not think that we should be too downcast by what seems a difficult situation at the moment. We are usually at our best when things are most difficult. It is the time to give that spark of spiration to get the country to take a pride in itself, to pull itself together and to become strong.
May I use what I hope is a correct but certainly is an abbreviated Shakespearian quotation as a way in which I should like to criticise the Government for their lack of inspiration:
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood…
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect
for a 3 per cent. growth rate. Is it any wonder that the weaker spirits among our young people take to drugs and the stronger ones join the brain drain if that is all we offer them? If we can revive our faith in our future and confidence in ourselves, we shall not have to worry about the balance of payments. It will look after itself. But I am afraid that I see little in the Gracious Speech which will do that.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. R. B. Cant: I cannot follow the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain Elliot). He finished with a splendid mixture of


figures of speech and figures of arithmetic. Perhaps my contributions lie in the latter rather than the former field.
I sometimes wish that I could stand here and arouse some of the passion and emotion which some of my colleagues achieve. I thoroughly enjoyed my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) having a good bash at the Treasury. He cannot have been reading the Sunday newspapers. Otherwise he would have been exceedingly irritated because quite obviously in the further reshuffles, which are not going to be expressed in Ministerial terms but in terms of power relationships, the Treasury is definitely coming out on top. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is to take over the chairmanship of the Policy Committee on prices and incomes. It looks as if he is also to have something to do with the longer-term strategy of the economy of the nation. The poor old D.E.A., as I always hoped it would, is to be relegated merely to looking after the restructuring of industry—which is enormously important, of course.
The other change which is to take place, if not actually proposed in the Gracious Speech—I get all my foreknowledge for happenings from the newspapers—is that the new President of the Board of Trade has in fact now appointed an expansionist economic adviser, no other than the author of "The British Economy 1975", Mr. Beckerman. Mr. Beckerman was the man who first gave birth to a 4 per cent. growth rate which was taken over by the D.E.A. So we are to have a very mixed situation in the economic policy hierarchy of the Government.
I have been present during this debate yesterday and today. Most of yesterday was devoted to discussions of regional economic policy, a subject which has crept in today but today, on the whole, discussion has been much more wide ranging. I crave the indulgence of the few hon. Members with us tonight and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I want to talk about a very special topic related to the application of this country for entry to the Common Market and the alleged French reaction to it. I should like to spend a few minutes on the question of French opposition to British entry because Britain has a reserve currency. I know that this sound rather esoteric and

it leads up to a little detailed consideration, perhaps a little lecturing which is something which one should not do in this House but we have had so much of generality that perhaps this might be excused.
I quite honestly believe that whatever the motives of the French Foreign Minister he has perhaps done this country a service.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Hear, hear.

Mr. Cant: I am very grateful for that. He has done a service because the Chancellor of the Exchequer whom, except in relation to decimal currency, I always support at least 95 per cent., is a little complacent. Whether he is a victim of Treasury domination I do not know; he has not told me. [An. HON. MEMBER: "He is not likely to."] Perhaps he is not likely to. We have a situation in which there are various schools of thought but perhaps it could be summed up in this way. There are many people who argue that if the economy is all right then sterling is O.K.; if the economy goes a bit wrong then the fact that we have a reserve currency aggravates the situation slightly. The main thing, therefore, is to get the balance of payments right and sterling will be O.K.
This is a thesis which is widely shared by many quite radical economists such as Sir Roy Harrod, but which I think is wholly mistaken. Not only does the fact that we have a reserve currency aggravate our economic situation but it also to some extent is the cause of some of our economic dilemmas. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] I do not want too much applause from this side of the House because I have already said that to a very considerable extent I am with the official point of view and with the Chancellor of the Exchequer but what we are faced with is the failure both officially and by this self-styled "Neddy" of the City, this group on invisible earnings, to get down to an analysis of—let us use the phrase a cost benefit analysis—being a world banker and having a world currency. No one ever seems to have done this.
If we look at American banking and economic journals we see, whatever one may say about American education, an academic level of investigation into this


problem which makes most of our efforts look terribly amateurish. We have to look this squarely in the face. We have to accept that having a world currency and being a world banker bestows undoubted benefits on this nation. It allows very often but not always a country to have deficits with impunity. We have got a bit beyond that stage, but the Americans are at the moment enjoying this benefit of having a world currency because they can increase their short-term liabilities abroad and no one bothers that much about it. But this benefit for us has gone.
That is point No. 1 and the second point is that, as a result of being a world banker and because sterling is a world currency, we get very generous loans from people abroad. This is what de Gaulle says, we are getting permanent loans from the rest of the world. This is undoubtedly a benefit. Of course, as the report on invisible earnings shows quite clearly, we make very considerable earnings in terms of fees, commissions and so forth in this way. When we come to the other side of the picture some of us get a rather rude awakening. We think that being a world banker is all gain but, without going into too many details, I wonder if we have ever calculated what has been the cost to this country in terms of raising the Bank Rate to keep money in London.
This has been analysed by an Oxford economist. Again, we must not bring too many figures into this, but he showed that over the last decade this has had a very powerful influence on our balance of payments deficit. To take one very broad figure, the interest we pay on these short-term loans from abroad at around £170 million is almost equal to the total earnings on invisible accounts to which this Committee makes reference. This is the sort of perspective we should get.
What about devaluation? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is very strong on this, but I do not support him. I do not think that at this stage in our economic history we should devalue. I do not think it would be effective but what I do believe is that it should always be an option for this country and that we must never be persuaded not to adopt it for example because we are world bankers, because we have substantial

sterling liabilities and because it would be immoral automatically to reduce our interest payments.
If we take a related point—the Bank of England's intervention in the forward foreign exchange markets—it told the Radcliffe Committee that it would be a quite improper thing to do but since 1964 it has done nothing else.
Because we cannot devalue we go through all these manipulations. There is no doubt that, technically speaking, the Bank of England makes a profit from this. I tabled two Questions to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking him to tell us what the effect on our reserves is. He said that he was not prepared to tell the House. This is wrong. What is the good of the Bank of England making profits if the profit-taking involves a loss of reserves of a substantial nature?
Our situation as a world banker is aggravated because we are the centre of a sterling area. This is not the case with other reserve currencies. It is not the case with the dollar. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer talks about the franc area. This is absolutely ridiculous. The franc area is about one-twelfth of the size of the sterling area in terms of its liabilities. It must be accepted that in the past six years, on balance, the sterling area, in terms of the deficits in the rest of the sterling area countries, has been a liability to Britain and has drawn on the central pool of reserves. This is a serious aspect of the problem.
Take the whole question of foreign investment. A country which is a world banker, which is the centre of the sterling area, and which thinks, rightly or wrongly, that it must cut down its foreign investment is compelled on moral, administrative and every other ground to place restrictions on foreign investment in those very countries which are not in the sterling area but which are in fact the most profitable venue for investment. If we had to restrict our foreign investment, we should have done it in the sterling area countries and not in Europe and North America. This is part of the price we have to pay.
A world banker is susceptible to all sorts of political developments. The consequence of Israel invading Egypt or


of Egypt invading Israel is that there is a massive withdrawal of sterling funds from London. What has this got to do with us? Yet we become an area of maximum sensitivity because we are placed in this financial situation. The hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) spoke about the Swiss. The Swiss are merely begging us to take back the sterling funds which were taken from London and which they do not want. We did not go cap in hand to them.
Finally, in discussing Britain's rôle as a world banker and all the money that the City of London earns on invisible account, never let us as economists forget that these resources have alternative uses and that the 500,000 or 750,000 people who flock into the City every morning to earn on invisible account might well be doing other jobs.
Although I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a little too complacent, I do not know that there is much that we can do about it. The Left wing below the Gangway talk generally in terms of, "Let us offload this incubus. Let us get rid of it. Let us stop being a reserve currency". I only wish that this could be done. The Chancellor says to de Gaulle, "You tell me how to do it". It is like me going to my bank manager and saying, "I cannot do anything about my overdraft. You tell me how to liquidate it". My bank manager might have a few things to say.
We must ask ourselves what the French Foreign Minister means by the expression "reserve currency". I have heard, in private conversation, an hon. Member opposite say that the French Foreign Minister does not understand the problem and that he has got it all mixed up, otherwise he would not talk in that way. I do not think that we should accuse French men of getting things too mixed up. I think that the French Foreign Minister used the phrase "reserve currency" because this might introduce a general source of confusion in the argument.
A reserve currency is something specific I do not need to define it, because everybody who has been willing to stay to listen to this discussion understands the concept perfectly. Let us accept that there is no easy solution. Let us have the Triffin Plan. Let us have the Maudling plan. Let us have the new drawing rights

scheme plus. Let us have the new consortium reserve unit. Let us have anything we want for 10 years hence, but it will not help us now.
To be practical, I suggest that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer shows some initiative in the business of off-loading sterling as a reserve currency and that he begins discussions with Australia and Kuwait, to take two examples, in an attempt to begin the process of funding, because it is purely psychological. If de Gaulle saw that we were no longer mesmerised by sterling and no longer attached prestige to it, he might weaken a little. Let us also state in relation to our liabilities to the International Monetary Fund that we propose seriously to start reborrowing from 1970 onwards, taking advantage of the provisions of the Fund's articles.
A reserve currency means something much more critical than the usual definition of the phrase, because our great problem arises, not so much from our being a reserve currency, as from our being a trading or invoicing currency. Much of our trouble this summer has been caused by the fact that so many of our patriotic businessmen have taken cover to avoid any exchange risks in the future. This has involved the sale of sterling, admittedly in the forward market, but equally admittedly this has an immediate impact on the stock market. The Chancellor must look into this.
I suggest, first, that I.C.I., the oil companies and any big users of sterling in the forward market must show firm contracts and not merely be engaged in a covering, hedging or speculative deal, although I am sure that they do not engage in the latter. Secondly, the Bank of England must do everything it can to encourage the decline of sterling as a trading currency. There is evidence that the Bank has worked during the summer in the opposite direction and has discouraged invoicing in DM rather than in £s. Thirdly, we know that being a reserve currency is not only by traditional definition the use of sterling as an invoicing currency. It also has something to do with the question of hot money. I know that this is a popular phrase, but I mention it because our situation as a world banker in the last three or four years has been seriously aggravated by


the development of London as a Eurocurrency centre.
There is not the slightest doubt abut this. When a person like Mr. Tether of the Financial Times, the author of the Lombard column, calls this Euro-currency market an international financial monster, importing all this emotion into the argument, there must be something in it. The Chancellor, who has on one single occasion only hinted that there is a growing problem, must look seriously at this question. It is no good earning a few pounds, or whatever it might be, in this trade if we are going to introduce an element of greater instability into the economy.
I should like to say more, but I have spoken for too long already. I repeat that I honestly think the French have done us a service in reminding us that being a world banker operating a reserve currency can be a liability. At this stage there is nothing that we can do about it, but I hope that we shall do what we can.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) raised some very important issues with regard to currency and I am sure the House listened to him with very great attention. I certainly did. I do not feel equipped to follow him now. Since this is a comprehensive debate and one can raise subjects of a specialised character, I should like to deal first of all with that part of the Gracious Speech which refers to town and country planning.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) referred to the question of modernising our planning system in this country, and there is a reference to that subject in the Gracious Speech. The White Paper which has been issued refers at paragraph 44 to the enforcement of planning control. I want to refer particularly to planning control and to those bodies which at the moment are in certain circumstances exempt from it. I hope that when the town and country planning Bill is introduced the Minister of Housing and Local Government will deal with this question. In fact, I have reason to believe that he has some sympathy with what I am going to say because of an incident

which occurred in my constituency the other day.
I do not think that State enterprises should enjoy disproportionate privileges where planning or compensation are concerned and where they exercise powers under Private Acts or Orders. I think it rather surprised the public and a good many hon. Members the other day to discover that gas boards and other undertakings can erect gasholders and other buildings without applying for planning permission where they are operating under a Private Act or Order. I think this should be stopped. I do not see why planning permission should not be obtained in each case; it may be necessary, of course, to have some special provisions or procedure within the planning authorities to do this. I am not making an attack on statutory undertakings as such. What I am saying is that while I realise that they have duties to supply gas, electricity and coal, and also to run railways, that should not mean that they can build without regard to local interests.
This matter arose in my constituency at Abingdon the other day where the Southern Gas Board attempted —"attempted" was the word—to build a very large gasholder 128 feet high in an ancient part of the town which is important architecturally. The White Paper refers to the preservation of buildings of architectural interest and of further means towards that end. Therefore, it is very important that when we come to the town and country planning Bill—I hope the House as a whole will support this—we shall study how these undertakings can be brought under planning control.
Abingdon was saved on this occasion by the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government because he realised that Abingdon's architectural amenities would be affected by the erection of a huge gasholder overshadowing the town, and he issued what is known as an Article 4 direction under which the Southern Gas Board had to apply for planning permission. Negotiations then continued, as a result of which some compensation has to be paid to the Southern Gas Board.
The important part about this incident was that the Minister had to intervene in this rather cumbersome way of issuing an Article 4 direction under the Town and Country Planning Order, 1963. I do not think that should be necessary. We have reached a stage twenty years after nationalisation when these bodies should have to apply for planning permission in the normal way. I have reason to think that the Minister will support that view. I hope this will appear in the Bill. If not, I hope hon. Members will press for it.
As the law stands at the moment, under Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, where planning permission is refused to a statutory authority it may apply for compensation, which has to be paid by the planning authorities. In the case of the Southern Gas Board in Abingdon the Board applied for no less than £250,000 in compensation to put in what was in effect a much less unsightly high-pressure low-level system. That seems to be utterly absurd.
Negotiations took place, sponsored by the Minister of Housing and Local Government and his Minister of State. A compromise was reached, and the County Council and Abingdon are likely to pay £110,000. That is half of what the Board was demanding. But there must be a fair formula here. As matters stand at the moment, the Gas Board, despite the protests of the local authorities, could have obtained about £250,000 in compensation through the Land Tribunal. So there is clearly room for amending legislation here and I hope it will appear in the forthcoming Bill.
A significant point in the Gracious Speech is the paragraph referring to a policy
to expand and improve arrangements for scientific research.
I am glad to see a representative from the Ministry of Technology present. I hope the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will pay great attention to what I am going to say. The position with regard to a major aspect of our scientific research—I refer to fusion—is one that is causing widespread anxiety throughout scientific circles in this country. It may have a considerable effect on the staff at the Atomic Energy Authority employed at the Culham Laboratory. Many of them are actually

in my constituency. The issue to which I refer, however, is a national one and I do not refer to this as a constituency point alone.
It is widely held by scientists that the Minister of Technology made a very serious mistake in announcing on 26th July that he would cut by 50 per cent, in the next five years the £4 million allocated to the fusion and plasma physics programme. I have had correspondence with the Minister during the Recess. He told us in the House on 26th July that he had been assured that Britain would still maintain a leading position in fusion research in spite of the 50 per cent. cut. Of course, that cannot be so. The impression that he has given is that fusion research, the harnessing of the power of the hydrogen bomb to peaceful means, is a decaying field. That is the impression he has given to international scientists.
How can he, therefore, expect the Culham Laboratory to retain a staff of the highest calibre when he makes an announcement of this kind? Surely £4 million, which is a microscopic amount of money to spend in view of the potentialities of fusion research, and microscopic compared with what other countries are spending, should not have been cut in this way? I said also in my letter that it was a negative decision. Why not wait for some positive policy for the deployment of Government scientists in power research and technology as a whole? Why not wait for a positive decision on that before making a negative decision against this, the most advanced field of power research?
Fusion power may well be an entirely new source of power. If £4 million is too much to spend on fusion research, how are the resources of the Culham Laboratory to be deployed? As I say, this is a matter not merely of concern to my constituents; it has influenced people's opinions about their livelihoods and careers, and it may well add in its way to the brain drain.
On 20th September, the Minister replied to me and said that it would not be helpful—I do not know why he used the word "helpful"—for the working party report on this question to be published. One of the objections of top scientists to the decision is that the Minister has refused to publish the report of


the working party of the Atomic Energy Authority on the reasons—I mean the scientific reasons—why the cut of 50 per cent. over five years should be made. The Minister's attitude is quite extraordinary. There are published scientific papers in the United States and Russia on the whole question of expenditure on fusion research. I quite understand that, where staff matters or questions of reorganisation are involved, they should be confidential, but why the Minister has refused to publish the report on the scientific reasons I do not know. I intend to take the matter further with him. To say that it would not be helpful is quite wrong. It would be very helpful for scientists to know what is behind this important decision. It is quite wrong to proceed in this way, and most premature.
Does the Minister's decision mean that research on fusion and plasma physics in the universities as distinct from the Government's sphere should be cut down, too? The Minister entirely dodged this issue when I asked him about it in my letter, and I still want to know what he means.
In other countries there is confidence in the future of fusion power. In the view of many top scientists in this country, it will eventually be a new source of power after the fast breeder reactor. Recently, the Russians gave strong evidence on this at the Stockholm conference on fusion research. The Japanese are increasing their investment in fusion. The question is: is the best use being made of our natural resources in manpower and laboratory facilities to this end? Culham is a very well equipped laboratory.
Because it shows some ignorance of the issues involved in the work of the Culham Laboratory, the Minister's decision also shows one of the consequences of splitting science and technology between two Ministries. I have always doubted that that was right, and I regard this as an example showing that it may well have been wrong. Mr. Christopher Watson of Merton College, Oxford, wrote an article in The Times recently on the potentialities of fusion power. He said that it was assumed that fission reactors would provide all the energy we needed by the year 2,000, and he went on to point out that fission reactors are not inherently safe.
Nuclear power will become competitive. It is virtually competitive now, and, by the end of the century, fast breeder fission reactors will be the main source of power. But the fission reactor, says Mr. Watson, is not inherently safe. It produces plutonium, and, from the standpoint of world safety, it will produce a large amount of plutonium which could be available for the making of nuclear weapons. There is also the question of the disposal of radioactive waste.
The fusion reactor, said Mr. Watson, would not have these disadvantages, and it would be an alternative. It may be 20 years off, hut that is not the point. Lord Penney, the former Chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority, and the Minister of Technology gave evidence before the Select Committee on Science and Technology recently, saying, in effect, "This is a long way off. We do not have to concern ourselves immediately now. We must get on with the more modern types of fission reactor and develop the fast breeder reactor. We cannot spend all this money on what may, speculatively, be a new source of power." That is an extraordinary attitude for a Government who consider that research must be advanced. At least, I think that that is their view. It is a most mistaken decision, and I am taking the opportunity to raise the matter now, although I shall do so on other occasions.
If we could design a fusion reactor in the way that we hope to do—this is why the Culham Laboratory was set up, and why the Russians, West Germans, Japanese and Americans are working on it—then, as Mr. Watson said, it would burn sea water, it would be inherently safe, there would be no plutonium risk, and negligible radioactive waste. Mr. Watson does not claim that he can see into the future accurately any further than that, but the fact that scientists all over the world are working on this new source of power is, surely, a reason why the Minister must reconsider his decision.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman now on the Front Bench will talk to him about what I have said and ask the Minister to look into the question again. I am sure that his decision is not right. Scientists throughout the country are very worried about it. It might well have some effect on the staff of the Culham Laboratory, who might go to the United


States where expenditure on this kind of research is being stepped up.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Edmund Dell): I wish only to point out that I have been reshuffled since my days at the Ministry of Technology. I shall, nevertheless, draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the hon. Gentleman's speech.

Mr. Neave: I said at the beginning that I was not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was still at the Ministry of Technology, but I did not gather what reply he made at that stage. However, as he is, no doubt, still interested in these problems after his experience at the Ministry, I am sure that he will have a word with the Minister about it. He will, I know, agree that it is an important national issue. The future of power is one of the big issues which we shall have to discuss in this Parliament. The fact that I am looking ahead in raising this aspect of research now does not make it any the less important or render less mistaken the Minister's decision so grossly to cut this expenditure.
The third and last matter which I wish to raise will be familiar to the House. Yesterday, in attacking the Opposition rather fiercely and, sometimes, rather sneeringly—why sneeringly,I do not know—the Prime Minister asked for our co-operation, and, in the last sentence of his speech, he asked for co-operation in building a fairer and juster Britain, in the terms of the Gracious Speech. I would co-operate on those matters which are fair and just, but it is neither fair nor just to suggest that we should co-operate when there are still many who do not benefit from our present social security system.
The First Secretary of State referred today to gaps in our social services. I am referring now to one of these gaps. I have referred to it many times before, and I shall take every opportunity to do so again. We are approaching the time when the Ballot is held for Private Members' Bills, and I hope that someone will introduce yet a fourth Bill to pay a pension as of right to those old people who were excluded from the National Insurance Scheme in 1948. The present situation cannot be allowed to continue.
The former Minister of Social Security, who resigned last July, told me just be-

fore she left office that there were 175,000 old people, of an average age of 85, who receive no State pension at all. All parties are involved in this. No one can be proud of a system under which that state of affairs persists. The Government put up the defence at the moment that half of them are on supplementary benefits. This is just not good enough. The question is whether, as they were not allowed by law to contribute, they should have a pension as of right. It is no answer to say that we still adhere to the contributory principle. These old people did not contribute, but they could not contribute because they were prevented from doing so by the National Insurance Act, 1946, as they were above pension age. I shall have no hesitation in pressing the subject right through this Parliament.
If the people are 85 now—and many of those who write to me are 90—will the party opposite or Parliament as a whole tolerate the situation much longer? Since the present Government took office, and since I first introduced a Private Member's Bill on the subject, 75,000 of those old people have died. On 1st July, 1966, my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) introduced a similar Bill which was voted down. I very much hope that if another hon. Member introduces such a Bill other hon. Members will not try to defeat it this time, but will persuade the Government that an expenditure of £35 million to £40 million for full pensions for those old people before they die is a matter of justice. Such legislation is not mentioned in the Gracious Speech, but I wished to refer to it because I have always felt very strongly about the subject, and I intend to press it again.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: The House can pay tribute to the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) for the thoughtful and courteous way in which he spoke, in direct contrast with some of the speeches from the Front Bench opposite in the debates on the Queen's Speech. Most of us on both sides of the House can underline what he said about his constituency and the plight of old people. With his courtesy and thoughtfulness he made a useful contribution to the debate, but his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hex-ham (Mr. Rippon) showed the tenor of


the Opposition's approach to today's debate. His speech was good knockabout stuff which would have gone down well at a university rag, but one could not discover from it what the Opposition believed should have been included in the Queen's Speech. He seemed to hang his hat on the increase in the size of the Civil Service. This is an old argument from the Opposition, and I hope that when we examine why there has been an increase they will tell us where they would cut it down.
I welcome the increased number of civil servants who apply the wage-related unemployment benefit scheme, the wage-related sickness scheme and the redundancy payments scheme, all of which they failed to introduce. I also welcome the office of Land and Natural Resources, designed to cut out the ramp which the party opposite failed to curb and I do not begrudge the civil servants who examine requests for grants from industries which require them to move into certain areas.
Indeed, I hope that we shall have provision for more civil servants to do away with the graduated pension scheme. I regret that such provision does not appear in the Queen's Speech, but hope that it is covered by the reference to "other measures" which will be introduced. I hope that at an early stage my right hon. Friends will consider disposing of this iniquitous pension scheme and introducing something that gives much more value for money.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham spoke about the integration of transport and the question of how much compensation would be paid. We recall what the present Opposition did in 1953, when they disintegrated and pillaged nationalised transport, putting the profitable side, into private hands at give-away prices. I hope that the introduction of an integrated scheme will bring much benefit to the transport industry. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also talked about competition in the industry, but when the road haulage section of the nationalised industry was denationalised in 1953 the nationalised railway industry had to compete with one arm tied behind its back, as did the railway workshops. I hope that the hon. lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) will mention this in her reply.
In the brief time that I have tonight I want mainly to speak about gaming, which has not yet been referred to in the debate, except briefly by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) I believe. Gaming and gambling has had quite a history in this country, and there have been many attempts to try to control it. They include the Betting Act, 1853, the Street Betting Act, 1906, the Ready Money Football Betting Act, 1920, the Racecourse Betting Act, 1928, and the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934.
I make no party political point when I say that the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960, and the amendments of 1963 have probably been the most disastrous in this type of legislation. They led, quite unintentionally, to the absolutely chaotic situation which we have at present. The 1960 Act was called the "vicars' charter", as it was meant to legalise bingo and make church social fundraising schemes legal, but it has brought into being the sort of things that we do not want to see in this country.
I believe that it has had two effects. First, it has introduced casino, commercial gaming, which was not intended in the Act. Therefore, we have that kind of gaming flourishing without the sort of legislation that was meant to contain it. Racketeers are involved in it, and corruption, bribery, greed, extortion and even murder have taken their place under the Act, or because of it. We have well-known international racketeers and crooks coming into the country, members of the American section of the Mafia—I make no excuse for the emotion that word creates. The Saturday Evening Post of New York last February outlined the situation in the Bahamas, and people named in that article were working in London.
I was very pleased when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary banned 13 Americans from this country because of their activities in gaming. But the matter does not end there. The American racketeer is not on his own. We also have the Corsicans, Italians and the French. The French have a well-run casino system under which individuals are examined, no matter what their part in gaming, from croupiers right up to management level. We do not have such a system, and those who are banned from


France can come here and start the next day. We have seen this sort of thing creeping into our public life, a situation which was not envisaged in 1960 nor solved by the amendments in 1963.
That is the rough side of gaming in this country, but I would not have it thought that I was a complete killjoy. Many things resulting from the Act have added to our national life and life in the areas which I represent, and I do not resent those things. There is the night life, consisting of good night clubs where a good meal can be had up till one o'clock or two o'clock in the morning. There is provision for entertainers. Goodness knows, there is need for live entertainment in view of the closing down of many theatres. There has been a growth of things of this sort in the north, and many of them are first-class places of entertainment to which a man would be proud to take his wife. I welcome that side.
But there are many people engaged in the management of these places who are extremely worried about the side of it which I spoke earlier. They would welcome the tight restrictions which are necessary if we are to contain this creeping cancer among us.
People are adult; let us accept that. Gambling is a British trait. We have had gambling in this country for generations—horse racing, greyhound racing and football pools. Everybody likes a flutter. Let the man have his flutter. But if we are to legislate on this matter the principle that we must aim at is ensuring that when the man has his flutter he gets a fair crack of the whip.
We must get rid of the foreign undesirables who are engaged in this occupation here. Reference was made in the New York Saturday Evening Post to the Puerto Rican situation. I recommend my right hon. Friend to read it. No one is allowed to take part in the management of those places unless he has ten years' residence. With regard to the 1961 Act, this may be one way of making our legislation retrospective and ensuring that we rid the country of undesirables.
I believe that, having examined the fears and dangers, the Government must ask themselves, "Can we contain this gaming? Can we ban it, or should we

give it a free-for-all?" The Government should examine it in this context. I do not believe that, even if we wished to do so, we could ban it and forget it. In America there is only one State in which gaming is legal. Yet the American organisation, Cosa Nostra, makes a fortune in all the other States out of illegal gaming. If we attempted to ban commercial gaming it would disappear underground and we should have a bigger problem than ever, particularly with the protection racketeers and extortion merchants.
We must consider how gaming can be controlled, and controlled in such a manner that we get something out of it. Perhaps the most practical way would be to create a gaming board. It would have to be given wide powers. The industry must accept that it is not an ordinary business run on ordinary commercial lines. It must submit to close examination of its background and the individuals working in it and managing it. It must submit to examination as to the source of its finance to ensure that we do not have infiltration by backdoor methods.
The gaming board of control would have to be given extremely wide powers. I would advocate that, whatever legislation was brought forward, a great amount of delegated power should be given to the board. When anyone blocks a mouse hole there are always another dozen mice gnawing at the floor boards to try to get in another way. This was found in regard to the 1960 Act and the 1963 Act. The board must be given sufficient powers to control whatever the source happens to be.
A fantastic amount of money and turnover is involved. No one knows how much. An estimate of £1,000 million a year has been made. There is talk of about £100 million from fruit machines alone. This is a huge amount. At the moment the Exchequer is getting a measly £1½ million from it as a result of a very clumsy tax introduced simply for the purpose of getting some revenue from the activity. But a tax structure based on rateable values is clumsy. It dodges the issue and does not get at the source of the big turnover. I hope that the Home Secretary will carry out a close


examination of this structure of activity. At the same time as we make it respectable by drawing up the rules by which it shall work, I hope that we shall formulate a taxation structure which will ensure that the country gets its fair whack out of it.
A great deal has been spoken about casino-type gaming. I have examined this in several cities. The growth of the disease and corruption varies from place to place. One aspect of gaming which is often forgotten is the fruit machine type of gambling. This is no innocent little matter of just pulling a handle. There is a tremendous turnover. It has led to corruption in places that I would never have thought of. The activity has infiltrated into working men's clubs, private clubs, cricket clubs and clubs of many other types. There have been attempts at corruption and coercion in them. The people who are controlling the distribution of fruit machines must be brought under the umbrella of whatever gaming board is introduced. The profits from fruit machines must be controlled. Whoever likes a flutter on a one-armed bandit deserves a fair crack of the whip. There is talk about loaded dice, but loading a dice is a childish thing compared to the way in which fruit machines can be fixed.
I read in a newspaper tonight that applications for fruit machines in supermarkets are to be firmly stamped upon. I hope that we shall not see the day when the size of the shopping basket will depend on how much the housewife gets out of a fruit machine. Worst of all is when one sees these machines in shops and other public places where youngsters can play on them. I hope that this side of it will be put into the background.
Once having made these machines respectable, let us look at the imports of them. At the moment we are annually importing about £4½ million of fruit machines, which is a lot to add to our balance of payments problem. If these machines can be made in this country, I hope that that will happen. I should welcome a regulation stopping us from spending too much money on importing machines from abroad.
I could continue about this for a long time because in the last two years I have

made a very close study of what is involved.
The moralty of gambling can be argued almost anywhere. The church accepts the fact that gambling takes place. Many organisations deplore gambling. But let us be realistic and accept that it exists; if people want to gamble, let them gamble. But we should put the matter in its proper perspective, control it rigidly and get rid of the undesirables who have infiltrated into the very core of the American business interests in this field. I hope that this will be the policy of the Home Secretary.
I welcome broadly most of the matters included in the Gracious Speech, for I think they represent a big step towards righting some of the social inequalities in this country. I hope that the Government will firmly press forward with their proposals and get them through Parliament this Session.

8.20 p.m.

Earl of Dalkeith: One of the features of this debate which has most interested me is that, in listening to the speeches from both sides of the House, one cannot fail to be impressed by the apparent genuineness of hon. Members in trying to be constructive, in trying to give realistic answers to our many problems. While, of course, the solutions suggested have varied, practically all the speeches seem to have had one theme—the basic admission that our problems are enormous, that the country is in great difficulties and that a great many new steps will have to be taken to try and overcome them.
I was more disappointed in the speech of the First Secretary of State than in any I have heard from the back benches so far as constructive content is concerned, although I am prepared to make an exception of one passage—that in which the right hon. Gentleman dealt with the question of regional development and employment.
It appeared to me that what the right hon. Gentleman was saying in this respect was very much the answer to a speech of mine in which I pleaded with the Government that, in taking measures to try to bring about a cooling of an overheated economy, they should direct their attention to the geographical areas which were


the cause of the overheating—in other words, not to direct the fire extinguisher at all parts of the country but to concentrate upon where the fire was.
I should perhaps be flattered that the right hon. Gentleman should have responded to that speech, but, alas, I am not. I am saddened because I happened to make that speech three years ago in the debate on the Gracious Speech then. Had that speech had any notice taken of it during the following three years, a great many tragedies of unemployment could have been avoided and the Government would not now be having to take the panic measures they are taking in Scotland and which are not particularly sound measures in terms of giving the taxpayers good value for money.
I naturally accept that panic measures must now be taken in the situation in which we find ourselves. But it is unfortunate that they have to be taken. In reply to a Question last Wednesday, the Secretary of State for Scotland informed me that he is to make £5½ million available for expenditure on various public services. I understand that this includes payment to local authorities for road maintenance on conditions that the money is spent before the end of March. I should like to know in much greater detail how that money is to be spent.
I know of some cases where money has been allocated to local authorities—which, for obvious reasons, are not going to reject—to spend on the resurfacing of roads which are already in an immaculate state. This is not sensible value for money and the taxpayers generally will be upset about it. If it is going to provide extra employment, well and good. But, from my limited knowledge of the matter, I do not believe that the re-tarring of a road provides a great deal of employment in relation to the amount of money involved in materials and machinery.
The whole question of deflation needs re-examination by economists because it is becoming plainer to many of us that deflationary measures in themselves create just as many inflationary problems as they are seeking to cure. It seems to me that, as well as being callous, it is absurd to pay a very large number of men a good deal of money for doing nothing

when they could be paid considerably more to produce something which could then be exported. But that is the situation we are in.
I am also somewhat disillusioned by the Government's apparently boastful and complacent attitude which creeps out from time to time. No doubt this is for the benefit of the morale of their supporters but it is something that will be misconstrued throughout the country and which they will regret later on.
We hear figures mentioned of the number of advance factories completed and the like, but if only they were occupied how much happier one would feel. Some advance factories have been standing empty for a longer time than has been the case since the advance factory programme began.
I am the last to try to make political capital out of these difficulties. I am not one of those who take the gloomy view about Scotland's prospects. We in Scotland have terrific opportunities, tremendous talent and energy if only the Government could create the sort of conditions in which our industry could flourish and expand in confidence. But this is where the Government are failing.
The Gracious Speech says that further Measures will be laid before us and I hope that we shall hear in this debate what these are to be in rather precise detail. One announcement recently concerned the increased planting programme of the Forestry Commission and I warmly welcome this, particularly as it seems to indicate the Government's acceptance of the great importance of forestry to the national economy for many years to come.
My only regret is that the Government appear to have ignored the fact that, if they wish to create a greater volume of timber to see us through the years ahead, bearing in mind the F.A.O's warning of a world softwood timber shortage, they should have devoted greater encouragement to the private sector to undertake a greater amount of the planting. I say this on the simple ground that this would be infinitely less expensive to the taxpayers.
How much greater would our unemployment have been but for two factors. One of these is the appalling rate of emigration from Scotland over the last three years. This is a national tragedy.


About 120,000 individuals must have left Scotland during this period. The second factor is the vastly growing number of civil servants, which has now risen by some 54,000—a very sizeable increase.
I should like someone in the Department of Economic Affairs to work out the cost to the nation of those extra 54,000 civil servants, not only in terms of their wages but in terms of what they could be earning for the country were they working in manufacturing industry. In addition, I should like to know the cost in terms of office accommodation, machinery and equipment provided for them.
One tends to regard the cost of this figure of 54,000 in terms of 54,000 wages but there is more to it than that. I do not believe that the Government can afford to go on increasing Government interference in every aspect of individual life while at the same time increasing the army of civil servants who are there to see that the niggling interferences are implemented.
I cannot help feeling that one of the saddest features in Scotland has been the imposition of the Selective Employment Tax. It has been said over and over again that this hits Scotland more harshly than any other part of the United Kingdom. The simple reason is that Scotland is more dependent upon service industries in relation to productive industries. It is all very well saying that one is handed back all kinds of things in the development areas, but it is rather like hitting a man on the head with a hammer and being surprised when he does not thank you when you offer him a piece of sticking plaster.
This is the sort of thing which is undermining the faith of people in Scotland over this Government. This is why—and this is a matter which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) was speaking about earlier—Scottish nationalism is spreading at the present time. This always happens whenever the people in Scotland feel that they are being thoroughly badly governed from Westminster. One of the reasons is that we have a surprisingly small number of Scottish Members or individuals of Scottish blood in the Cabinet. I do not think they have ever been so few and far between. This is the first time for many years that

we have been without a Scotsman as Prime Minister. Throughout the Conservative period of office, when a great deal was being done for Scotland, about half the Cabinet was composed of men and women with Scottish blood in their veins.
On the subject of the House of Lords reform, to which I will refer only briefly, having a family interest in the matter, I cannot help feeling that the main argument for advancing this proposal—and we do not know yet what the proposal may be—is that the House of Lords has excessive powers. That is complete and utter nonsense. Its powers are practically non-existent at the present time. I personally feel that there is a strong case for a certain degree of reform—indeed, I have advocated it for many years—on the grounds that one wants to try to make it not more powerful, but to improve its effectiveness and efficiency as a debating Chamber, so that it will command more respect throughout the country. This is very important in relation to this House, because it is only when both Houses are respected that Parliament will be respected.
There has been no time in our history when Parliament, as a whole, has fallen into such a low state of repute among the population. Niggling away at the other place, as undoubtedly hon. Members will do, because this will be a field day for the inverted snobs, will be very much to the detriment of this House as well.
I agree with what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said: that this is a thoroughly irrelevant proposal in relation to the crying needs of the country. I would go a long way with him in his view that we ought to be tackling conservatism—with a small "c", I hasten to add—inside the Treasury, and, I would also suggest, conservatism, with a small "c", in some of the trade unions. I have never heard anybody from these benches suggest that reform of the trade unions should involve getting tough with them. This is the last thing which I would have suggested. Indeed, I personally believe that we should be able to increase the power of the trade unions and thereby increase their respect, so that they are in a better position to exercise a good stabilising influence over their members at times when there are unofficial disputes.
On the question of Europe and the Common Market, I have always been an enthusiastic supporter of the idea of a united Europe and a system which would remove the divisions between nations in Europe. I have, therefore, felt that by joining the E.E.C. we could achieve this, but I have growing anxieties over the timing of our entry. Ideally we would want to enter at a time when our economy was at its strongest, so that we would be in a good bargaining position, and not at a time when it is at the lowest ebb that it has been for years.
If we put ourselves in the shoes of President de Gaulle we might get a glimmering as to why he is opposing our entry. Some of the reasons are obvious, but he might also at this moment of time have some reason for thinking that we might be a liability to him and other countries in Europe because of the state of affairs which we have in this country and the apparently small sign shown by the Government that they have a remedy for dealing with the situation. President de Gaulle may feel about the British Government as our own Prime Minister feels about the Government of South Arabia. In his speech yesterday the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the difficulties of dealing with a Government which clearly did not command the support of its people. Might not the President feel somewhat the same about our Prime Minister? Can it be said from the public opinion polls that the Government command the support of the people at the people at the moment? I rather doubt it.
I hope that in the winding-up speech—and I hope that this will come out in the foreign affairs debate tomorrow—we shall be given a clearer definition by the Government of what the proposals for joining Europe will mean to Scotland and the Scottish economy. The people of Scotland are not being taken into the Government's confidence by being given a White Paper to explain what the effects might be, and that is why this nationalistic feeling is growing up. I should be grateful if some attention could be given to that.
I certainly wish the Foreign Secretary the best of good fortune in the negotiations which lie ahead, but I hope that when he gets near to signing the Treaty of Rome he at any rate will not make

the mistake of confusing Vat 69 with the Pope's telephone number.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. James Hamilton: I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith), who, like myself, represents a Scottish constituency and is obviously here because of the wishes of the people of his constituency. He spoke of the suggested measures to deal with the other place. On this side of the House there is no doubt that there must be some reform of the House of Lords and that it must take place quickly. I am very much in favour of a second chamber, which is essential in a democratic country, but we will have to wait and see what the Government have in mind for what alterations are to take place.
Much has been said by hon. Members from development areas about unemployment. We should not attempt to score points about unemployment. To each and every one of us unemployment is an intolerable cancer. It has been said that unemployment in Scotland has been 136,000. At present, 84,000 people in Scotland are signing on at employment exchanges. Without exception, all Governments by various policies have endeavoured to do something about unemployment. Our own Government have attempted, are attempting and say in the Gracious Speech that they will continue to attempt to do something for the development areas.
I hazard the guess that the Government's policy in respect of advance factories is a paying policy. Much has been made of the fact that the advance factories built in Scotland since we came to power have produced only 600 jobs, but I remind hon. Members that although the advance factory built in Lanarkshire in 1948 employs only 60 people, the company concerned now employs 4,000 people and expects to employ 5,500 by 1970. All the advance factories which are finished on the industrial estate in my constituency are in full production and a further advance factory which will be ready for occupation by the end of the year will provide another 300 jobs. I am told by the Board of Trade at local level that four industrialists have made inquiries about another factory on the estate.
I realise that other development areas are not in the same fortunate position because of their remoteness and because they find it difficult to meet the social needs of those whom they wish to attract. In the main I agree with the Gracious Speech, but I feel that it should have included some mention of the minimum wage. Unless we do something about this many unemployed workers will find no encouragement to seek work. This is because with wage related supplements and redundancy payments the Government have cushioned the unemployed against the effects of loss of wages, preventing them from losing their social standards and enabling them to give their families a reasonable standard of living. However, in doing so it has been discovered that many of the lower paid workers are in receipt of wages below the amount of money paid at the employment exchanges. With such situation the incentive is not there for people to work.
At the Labour Party conference, a resolution was moved relating to this and the platform advised the mover to submit it to the Executive for examination. Obviously, the trade union movement has a point of view to express about the £15 minimum which is the figure that has been mentioned—and this must be given serious consideration. The resolution was not submitted to the executive, and when put to the vote was defeated. I am convinced that if the resolution had been dealt with as the platform advised, there would have been a distinct possibility of its inclusion in the Gracious Speech.
The time has long since past when we can say that the trade union movement alone is responsible for the wages of the workers. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) spoke of the Liverpool dock strike. I am a very active trade unionist, I was at a trade union conference this morning. Some of my members are engaged in an official stoppage. Of course, all stoppages are unofficial until they come to the executive council, and I am a member of my union's executive council. We can do all the talking we want here and put forward all sorts of points of view, but finally, the only people who can sort out the trade union movement are those in the movement itself.
At present the trade union movement at national level has no part to play at all and that is one of the weaknesses. We have a situation when a resolution is carried at the Trades Union Congress, but at the end of the day any of the affiliated organisations can walk out and do as they damn well please about that resolution. The movement must be given teeth to deal with some of the very difficult problems confronting it.
A great deal of amalgamation is taking place, and this is a move in the right direction. But imposing fines and imprisoning workers who are not prepared to toe the line will not be tolerated by the trade union movement, irrespective of which party is in power.
I wish to refer to the Liverpool strike. One of the weaknesses is this—and it can be said for many of the larger trade unions. Because of an abdication of responsibility at national level, the Liverpool dock strike, which was, in its initial stages, a sore, became festered so much that the official trade union leadership could not deal with the situation; it got completely out of control. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton that there were many problems. But when one examines the problems one quickly comes to the conclusion that the official trade union movement and the employers, for reasons best known to themselves, did nothing about it. Now we find ourselves in this impossible situation.
The Liverpool dockers have had an ordeal; but the whole country has had an ordeal. At this vital moment in our history, when we are fighting for economic salvation, the country and the Government must do something about saving the economy. Each and every one of us must measure up to our responsibilities and show the sort of leadership which the country has come to expect of us. We cannot walk the tightrope at all times. There comes a stage in history when we have to say that right is right. That is the sort of decision which we have to take. Unless we are prepared to do that, we shall be deemed to be a failure for all time in the eyes of the people of this country.
I wish to deal with the reference to industry which is made in the Gracious Speech. I welcome very much what is said in the Gracious Speech about the


Government taking a financial interest in some companies. I have always submitted that every man in this country has a right to work, to leisure and to have a decent wage to ensure a decent family life. If we agree with that principle, and if private enterprise fails miserably, as it has failed in many instances, then the Government have a responsibility to step in and ensure that the industries, technological developments and all other advances which are essential to this country are taken over by them.
I do not wish to be misunderstood. I am not in any circumstances in favour of the direction of industry. That is more or less a slogan, and I do not believe in sloganising. Once we have direction of industry, we must obviously accept direction of labour. I am bitterly opposed to the latter, so cannot accept the former.
As many hon. Members have sat here all day, some without lunch, I will make only a brief reference to the graduated superannuation pension scheme, which I am very surprised is not mentioned in the Gracious Speech. I repeat what most of us on this side said during the 1964 and 1966 elections, that the scheme was the greatest "fiddle" ever perpetrated on the workers; and if it was a fiddle in 1964 and 1966, it is still a fiddle in 1967. I expect this Government to state categorically that, before we meet the electorate in 1970—this Government will go on till then, undoubtedly—the scheme will be wiped from the Statute Book and something which benefits the workers put in its place.
I now turn to concessionary fares. The Glasgow Corporation's buses travel through my constituency, and, because they are municipal transport, old age pensioners in the city receive concessionary fares, but those who use this transport daily but live in the country part of the area are not given such fares. I hope that the integrated transport system which my right hon. Friend will introduce will contain more than simple permissive powers, because we know that local authorities and private bus companies will engage in long negotiations over such powers with no ultimate relief to the people whom we all want to assist. I hope that she will make it mandatory for private companies and municipal owners to give concessionary fares to all.
I have great faith in the Gracious Speech and am only sorry that many other measures which have been mentioned today are not included. The legislation envisaged entails a great deal of work, and we on this side will work wholeheartedly with the Government, because we are convinced that they are the only Government which can lead this country to the prosperity which we all desire.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. David Mitchell: The prosperity mentioned by the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) is not as apparent as when hon. Members opposite mocked the affluent society and Members on this side were in Government.
The Queen's Speech allows us to examine the general direction in which the Government's policy is taking us, which is becoming increasingly clear, stressing the fundamental division between the political parties. We believe in spreading power and wealth and participation, with more and more people having a share in the community. "Trusting the people" sums it up. The party opposite, on the other hand, and the legislative programme which is before the House, stand for concentrating power and wealth and control into the hands of the Government.
The old-fashioned idea of Socialism was nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange. I thought, until the Queen's Speech, at least, that that idea had been buried and forgotten in terms of practical politics, but the Queen's Speech shows that step by step this is the very thing which is being brought forward. It is not so much that the same phrase is used. I suppose now it is control, regimentation and interference; but it amounts to the same thing. We used to call unemployment unemployment; now, of course, it is redeployment, or some other name, but it amounts to the same thing.
Look at one of the main measures proposed—an industrial expansion Bill. The right name for that measure would be the "Government Expansion Bill", because its main purpose is to expand the field of Government into industry. The Prime Minister spoke of it as being a partnership. I am reminded that
There was a young lady of Riga Who went for a ride on a tiger.


We all know what happened to her. I suspect that this is what will happen to any industry which takes on that particular offer from the Government. The Prime Minister illustrated what he was saying:
in one case we were offered a share in the equity, not excluding the possibility of a majority shareholding but where, on the merits of the co se, we decided not to seek a share in the equity".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1967; Vol. 753, c. 32.]
I should have thought there was a clear reason why he did not accept a share of the equity and that that reason was the reason why it was offered in the first place, and one would merely ask whether it was Mr. Bloom's empire which was being offered on that occasion. However, it all amounts to a massive further interference in the means of production.
The next main measure in the Queen's Speech is about distribution, and we find that an attempt is to be made to drive private enterprise goods to the nationalised industries. If the Government had succeeded in running the nationalised industries efficiently, if the railways were a shining example of how business should be conducted, one might view this with less suspicion, but the plain fact of the matter is that they are going to try to drive their remaining competitors in private industry off the roads to bring more trade to the nationalised railways.
A very worrying thing about this is the way the dead hand of Government interference and of nationalisation is going to come down increasingly on Britain's freight traffic and our export trade, and anyone who has practical experience of how the nationalised freight traffic works in this country at present will view with considerable worry and concern the prospects which that would bring.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), in opening this debate, used a brilliant phrase about his own constituency and one which I cannot help repeating. He said that in Thurrock
We make cement, lots and lots of cement. … But the people of West Thurrock take neither pride nor pleasure in this, for cement dust interferes with their lives; their houses and their gardens and the washing on the line are touted by the dust …."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1967; Vol. 753, c. 9.]
Considering the Queen's Speech I can only say that, like the cement in the hon. Member's constituency, Socialism is

beginning, like the sand on the shore, to get into every aspect of our society, every aspect of our industry, to set increasingly into production, distribution and exchange, and we are finding it creeping in, with its dead hand and its damaging influence.
I had much more to say, had I had the time. I would even have welcomed the proposal to give better compensation to tenant farmers. As the Member for an expanding town, Basingstoke, I cannot help adding that I hope that this will also include those people whose properties are compulsorily purchased to aid a town expanding, because that is a very important field for Government legislation, and I hope that it will not be forgotten.
The clock is about to strike nine, and I am anxious to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) sum up the debate. But I would draw attention to the passage in the Gracious Speech which says that the Government are pressing on with their efforts to join the Common Market. Nothing contained in the Gracious Speech will do anything to prepare the country for the tough and cut-throat competition which will face our manufacturers should we get into the Common Market. The sooner we get in the better, but any Government responsible for the administration of the affairs of the country who do nothing to prepare the economy for the challenge which lies ahead will stand judged in future years as having failed in their duty to the nation, and that, I fear, is the judgment on the Gracious Speech.

9.1 p.m.

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: As is customary in the second day's consideration of the Gracious Speech, we have had an extremely wide debate, ranging from the development areas to the grey areas, to overseas, to underdeveloped areas and to Europe. Each of us is bound to select that aspect which appeals to us most and upon which we believe that we have a contribution to make.
I especially enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant), who unfortunately is not in the Chamber at the moment. He gave us his usual beautiful demonstration of economic skating on thin ice. I am not


sure whether the Minister was here at the time, but his hon. Friend gave a dissertation on what he considered to be the disadvantages of a reserve currency without giving any idea of how we could get out of being one, and without even admitting that it is impossible to get out of being a reserve currency. He referred frequently to the Report of the Committee dealing with invisibles. Indeed, he reminded me of the speech of a former Governor of the Bank of England, speaking about what a success story overseas investment had been for this country and how sorry he was that it had been temporarily damped down. He quoted some advice given by a predecessor of his:
A restriction or regulation may doubtless answer the particular purpose for which it is imposed, but as commerce is not a simple thing but a thing of a thousand relations, what may be a profit in particular may be ruinous in general.
That was advice said to have been proffered by Sir Francis Baring to Lord North's Ministry. It is, however, illustrative of the problems which we face today where the short-term expedients may well be against the long-term future of the country.
It has been quite clear as the debate has developed that on this side of the House we feel strongly about the increasing concentration of power in the hands of the Government. We are debating one Gracious Speech, but everyone will agree that it is one of a programme and that it cannot be considered in isolation from what has gone before or from what is likely to come afterwards. We must look at it—and my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) particularly looked at it—in the light of how much extra power it puts in the hands of the Government. We should all be wary of that, no matter on which side of the House we sit.
In the past there have been considerable increases in the power of the Government, and often in this Parliament the Government have acted considerably to the detriment of individuals. The First Secretary will be aware of the first fact which I shall mention in support of this theory, and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) will equally know of it because he was with us through the debates on the prices and

incomes policy which we have often had late at night. I do not think that I shall ever forgive the Government or ever hold them in very great respect again—not that I held them in much respect before, but I have held them in even less respect since—since they were the first Government to make it a criminal offence to keep a bargain. That was one of the worst things any Government could do, to teach the nation how to dishonour its commitments.
That is exactly what the First Secretary did in the Prices and Incomes Act. I do not think he introduced it. It was introduced by his predecessor, who also introduced Part IV which did that. That Section acted very considerably to the detriment of fundamental rights of individuals in this country. Individuals learned that they could no longer look to Governments for support of their rights but had to go to the courts. The courts have been a surer source of liberty than Governments in recent years. The courts upheld the individual, but then we had another Prices and Incomes Act which attempted to put back what the Government thought they had done on the first occasion, again against the individual and increasing power in the hands of the Government.
There have been many other cases of increasing arbitrariness. Whenever we get arbitrariness on the part of the Government the citizen does not know his rights and has fewer and fewer rights. For example, investment allowances are now at the discretion of the Board of Trade. Why discretion? Why is there not a right to get an investment allowance in certain industries?
Everyone in this debate has given a particular example and I have mine. It concerns an Inland Revenue case called the Bates case, which went to the House of Lords and was decided this year. I mention it for a particular reason. It concerns Section 408 of the Income Tax Act, 1952. Counsel for the Revenue, arguing that case, admitted that as the Section was worded the Inland Revenue could not administer it because it did not make sense. It was repeated in the judgment of four of the Law Lords that as the Section stood it could not be administered in accordance with the terms of the Act because it was too harsh and


Parliament could therefore never have intended it.
I could give many quotations, but I will give only one to prove my point. In the judgment Lord Reid said:
so the Inland Revenue have taken it upon themselves to disregard the statute and substitute a method which they think fair and, if I understood counsel rightly, in accord with the spirit of the Act".
There we have the Inland Revenue saying, "We cannot administer the Section as Parliament made it because it would be too harsh. Therefore we shall administer it according to what we think right" and four out of five of the Law Lords commented on this.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) asked the Chancellor whether he would amend that Section. My hon. Friend and I were absolutely horrified at the Answer which was given. The Answer was,
No, the decision in this case was in accordance with the intention of the Section."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1967; Vol. 749, c. 294.]
There was another example which probably, if I had not mentioned it, would not have been known to this House, in which the Government refused to follow the advice of four out of five Law Lords to amend the Section.
There is another example in the Selective Employment Tax by which a Minister has the right to join or separate premises for the purpose of deciding whether they are single establishments or different establishments, and there is no right of appeal. This is a further example of increasing arbitrariness. There is further disrespect of individual rights in the Land Commission Act where the expedited process of compulsory acquisition can mean that a person can be robbed of his livelihood, his farm or business, without a public inquiry. It is significant that before the other place got at it we could also have been robbed of owner-occupied houses without a public inquiry. At least the House of Lords managed to take that provision out of the Bill. We upheld them when the Bill returned to this House.
The final example of increasing arrogance on the part of Ministers and increasing arbitrariness was that given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) of

the Secretary of State for Education and Science saying, "I will change the law and I will change it quickly". The Secretary of State was told by the courts that his action was "wholly unreasonable".
It is against this background that we must view the increasing encroachments foreshadowed in this Gracious Speech. The examples I have referred to are encroachments on liberty. There are further economic encroachments which also affect the liberty of the individual. Today we no longer talk about nationalisation, because it is not a very popular word. The public does not like it. I notice that right hon. Members opposite are now talking about "public ownership", because that sounds much more respectable.
What is everybody's business is nobody's business. Public ownership does not put power into the hands of individual people. It means that the powers may be there but the individuals cannot exercise them, so it results in putting power into the hands, again, of a central clique. Already one employed person in four is employed in the public sector. This is an enormous proportion. Eventually, power over a man's means of support means more power over his will. Once the public sector is extended, more and more people will be dependent upon the State for their wage and salary packets. Ultimately, more and more power can be exercised over their will.
I was interested in the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) of the reduction in the research grant for thermo-nuclear fusion. I believe that I am right in saying that one of the reasons why we have not heard much about this is that employees of a public authority are precluded by the terms of their employment from making public statements. If the economic public sector is increased the number of people who can criticise the Government is reduced. This is another example of a great encroachment on individual liberty.
I turn now to a proposal in the Gracious Speech which has already received a good deal of attention, namely, the industrial enabling Bill. It is still difficult to see why the Government want extra powers in addition to those they already have. I understand that the assumptions behind the Bill are, first,


that the Government can choose successful projects which private enterprise cannot and, secondly, that they can probably inject better management.
I would not accept the assumption that a Government can choose projects likely to be successful in the future which private enterprise cannot. The Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and most hon. Members will probably agree that in the past—this has applied to the civil servants who have served both Conservative and Labour Governments—civil servants have not been very adept at costing new research projects. This is because we ask them to do something which we ought not to ask them to do. Civil servants have not been very good at costing some of the very advanced research projects because such projects are new and it is very difficult to cost them in any case. Civil servants have not got the expertise at their disposal which a merchant bank has. If they had such expertise, they would probably be working very successfuly for a merchant bank. If a project is a good one, the chances are that some merchant banker or other will support it.
What I fear the Secretary of State will do is support the projects which are not likely to be successful, and then he will be faced with the difficulty which some of us are often faced with—how much bad money should he pour after good, should he pour money in to try to make the project viable? Then more and more money will be poured in.
With regard to the second underlying assumption that better management could be injected, anyone who was in the House during the debate on Thursday relating to the management of the National Coal Board or who has read word by word the Report of the Tribunal on the Aberfan disaster—it is not the disaster as such that I am dealing with at the moment; it is the management—will appreciate that the Report contains one of the most severe indictments of management that one has ever read. I earnestly say to the right hon. Gentleman that if he wishes to concentrate on management, there is enough material in the public sector for him to improve

during his life in government. It really was an appalling indictment of the management of the National Coal Board. I hope, therefore, that he will concentrate upon making the public sector work.
There might, of course, be an argument for further nationalisation if the present nationalised industries had served the consumer extremely well. But I turn now to a Parliamentary Reply to a Question on Monday, 10th April, 1967, about the rise in prices in the existing nationalised industries from 13th October, 1964, to 21st February, 1967, which was the most convenient date chosen by the Minister who replied. According to this Answer, rises in retail prices of food amounted to 8.8 per cent. We know that it is now up to 10 per cent. The rise in the prices of clothing and footwear was 5.8 per cent., durable and household goods 5.7 per cent., and nationalised industries 14.6 per cent. That was before the latest increases in electricity prices.
I should like to say a word about the reference of those increases to the Prices and Incomes Board. They were not referred to the Prices and Incomes Board, but I understand that future increases are to be. I find it difficult to understand how any Prices and Incomes Board can adjudicate upon those prices without becoming highly involved in the policy decisions of the nationalised industries. The prices are inextricably bound up with the decisions taken on capital investment, the return on capital investment, the validity of the decisions and whether the same objective could have been reached by alternative plans. The alternative plan is often not adequately considered in investment in the nationalised industries. One reason is that it always seems to be the view that there is plenty of money where the previous lot came from.
May I consider the very extensive powers that the Government already have in connection with research and development and investment in industry. They have very wide powers to supply defence requirements under the Ministry of Supply Act, 1939. Under that Act they can promote research and development associated with defence functions. They have further powers under the Civil Aviation Act, 1949. They have powers relating to design and development of civil aircraft and can provide funds for


financing the development of new aircraft. It is under this Act that the Concord finance was provided. They can do everything except engage in the commercial production of aircraft.
Perhaps one of the biggest sets of powers the Government have is under the Science and Technology Act, 1965. They can engage in research and development and undertake action to further the application of the results. They can also act through the Atomic Energy Authority or the National Research Development Corporation. That Corporation has powers in securing the development or exploitation of any invention, to do anything requisite or convenient including carrying on or assisting someone to carry on a business. It already has an equity interest in firms making hovercraft. These are powers which already exist. We added to them last year in the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation Act. Under Section 2 of that Act there are powers to
promote or assist the reorganisation or development of any industry
and in so doing the Coropration may acquire, hold and dispose of securities. Why do we need yet another Act, another acquisition of power? Is it to cut down Parliamentary scrutiny? This is what I suspect it is, a general enabling Measure to cut down Parliamentary scrutiny.
We have not been told about specific projects which the Minister wishes to bring under the Bill, though there have been hints about Beagle Aircraft and about aluminium smelting schemes. I understood from what the First Secretary of State said today that speed was of the essence, and the need for speed was one of the reasons for the Government's proposal. This is terrifying. The thought that a Government Department can adjudge and evaluate a complex technological project quickly means that they will quickly spend a lot of money unwisely.
These are highly complex projects requiring considerable expertise, expertise which the Minister has not got and which I have not, though I am probably nearer to having it, coming from a family of professional managers, and which some hon. Members behind him may well have in greater measure than he has. But the need for speed is a totally inadequate reason for the Bill if it is to provide finance for complex technological projects. To argue otherwise is absurd.
It has been suggested in connection with the Bill that the Government might assist considerably in setting up aluminium smelting plants in this country. This, again, is a highly complex matter. I understand that one of the purposes in the Government's mind is import saving, but I greatly doubt that they have done all the necessary work on what the import saving would be if the money were spent on alternative schemes. This is the question at the heart of the true net import saving, and I doubt that the Government are even capable of judging it or have the staff to do it. We must be careful here not to blame civil servants. So often Governments ask them to do things which they are totally incapable of doing.
It is piquant that at this time there should be a proposal to introduce such a Bill. It is said that private industry has not the money to develop projects and the Government, therefore, should step in. It has been Government policy for some time to cut down the amount of money available for plough-back. What else has been the result of the Corporation Tax and the change in company tax structure, and the deflation of the economy which, by itself, means that there is not so much money to plough back?
Yet, just at the time when there has been a severe deflation and an alteration in tax which has meant that less money has been available to plough back, the Government say, "You have not got the money. We will supply it". This is absurd. Again I ask: Is the true reason that the Government want to acquire more power?
Shortly after he was appointed, the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs made several remarks. We all do it. He said that he would force industry to follow the "three Rs", reorganisation, re-equipment and retraining. This evoked a response from the managing director of the Royal Dutch-Shell company, who dismissed such remarks as being merely
new labels for some old and tawdry economic ideas which even the Soviet Union is in process of discarding".
He went on:
In the uncertain and near capricious environment which has been created, it is not surprising that investment has fallen.
I noted today that the First Secretary of State boasted that it had fallen by only


6 per cent. from 1966. It is now cause for boasting that the fall was not 10 per cent., as the Board of Trade thought in the first place that it would be. To continue the quotation, Mr. McFadzean, referring to examples of cost savings in the oil industry, said that in the last ten years transport costs have been cut by 50 per cent., productivity has been doubled, and prices cut by 25 per cent. This had not been achieved by Government intervention but, he said, was the result of competitive pressures
forcing Shell and other members of the oil industry to embrace technological process as the only alternative to gradual extinction.
The right hon. Gentleman knows how much trouble the efficiency and competitiveness of the industry caused in the House when, seeing the increasing use of oil, some hon. Members demanded protection for coal. There was not any lack of technological advance. There was such advance, and the resources were available from private enterprise to do it. Many a company would go to the wall if it did not make technological advances.
The other day I saw a comment by another very successful businessman, the chairman of Acrow, who was asked by the Government to serve on one of their committees. I think that there are far too many committees. One could spend all one's time on Government committees, trade association committees, or staggering from one committee to another. I need not tell the right hon. Gentleman that Cabinet Ministers are often the worse for this. It seems to me that they go from one committee to another and never have very much time to think about or assess the policies for which they are responsible.
The chairman of Acrow said that he was not going on a committee, and his reply was a model of what anyone should say to a Minister on such an occasion. In one of the most brilliant summaries of the situation that I have ever seen, he said:
I do not believe in wasting my time with official committee meetings which seldom result in positive action. There is nothing surprising in the fact that foreign engineering firms are taking such a substantial amount of business here at home. I am chairman of Adamson and Hatchett, in Dukinfield, Cheshire. We can deliver on time but we are not able to compete on price with imported Italian-made pressure vessels. Why? All products and services we have to buy from nationalized

industries are all more expensive than abroad, particularly in the case I am referring to—Italy. Our Italian competitors can buy British steel cheaper than we can… The Ministry of Fuel and Power say they do not know the comparative costs of electricity in England and those countries against whom we are competing… At great expense I can give the figures. The power consumed at our works… costs us at present £2014;24,960 a year. Had these works been situated in the following countries using the same amount of power it would have cost:

£


Canada (Ottawa)
15,000


U.S. (Detroit)
17,400


Sweden (Central)
18,200


Switzerland
15,360

The same applies to gas, which is considerably dearer in this country than in our competitors'."

He went on to deal with S.E.T., saying that as a manufacturer he should get a 7s. 6d. premium but that after an enormous amount of unproductive paper work S.E.T. costs Acrow £5,600. He continued in this vein. One of his main problems is that to which I asked the Minister to turn his attention—high prices in the public sector, which lead to high export costs.

I know that the economic theme is the central theme of the Gracious Speech, and we shall almost certainly have some days specifically devoted to the economic situation. But I see nothing in the Speech to cope with our economic problems. Let us remember when we discuss them that the Government have now been in power for more than three years, but the forecast produced by the London and Cambridge Economic Bulletin was one of the gloomiest I have ever read. It came when we had the worst monthly export figure since the Prime Minister's axe fell in July last year, with a very high import figure and the lowest sterling-dollar exchange rate in recent memory, and it was a very severe indictment on the underlying competitiveness of the British economy at the moment.

The Government are doing nothing to increase the competitiveness of the economy. They are bolstering up the inefficient by their premium policy and by the way in which they administer investment allowances. They are giving help to the inefficient when they should be encouraging the efficient and making it difficult for the inefficient to survive. Until that is done we shall not get the economy on an even keel or the surplus on balance of payments that we all wish.


I see no hope from the Gracious Speech that it will be done, and I shall listen to what the right hon. Gentleman has to say with more hope than faith.

9.30 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Peter Shore): I agree with the hon. Lady for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) that this has been a very wide-ranging debate. I suppose that was inevitable on the second day of the debate arising from the Queen's Speech. Like her, I have observed that hon. Members have moved from fruit machines to the Common Market and, indeed, from the fear of Chinese nuclear power back to the new-found militancy of pacifist demonstrators.
Like the hon. Lady, I should find it almost impossible, much as I should like to do so, to comment on all the very good speeches that have been made. I feel, too—this is a point that I share with the hon. Lady—that the focus of the debate has been broadly economic and social policy although, as we all know, there is to be a further debate on economic policy early next week.
The hon. Lady's speech reflected the basic fear and suspicion of public power which appears to be such a feature of hon. Members opposite. This is not a new theme in public discussion. I recall—I cannot remember the date—a famous Motion passed some time in the 18th century to the effect that the power of the State or Executive had increased, was increasing and ought to be diminished. At a certain level of debate we would perhaps all agree with the hon. Lady, but it is very interesting that under successive Governments—if one takes a broad view of history there is no doubt that this is true—the power of the State in one form or another has increased, and there is no party in the Realm which has contributed more to the extension of State power than that which the hon. Lady represents. Her party has expanded the power of the State until it is very much what it is today.
What matters is the uses to which the power of the State is put. It is the belief on this side of the House that the power of the State can be mobilised to carry out or help carry out the policies that are needed to get this nation right. It is because we believe this that we have

made the proposals that we have put forward in the Queen's Speech to continue to equip ourselves with certain powers in relation to industry—there is no tyrannical threat here, I assure the hon. Lady—to help in partnership with industry to finance projects which we believe will be in the national interest. We shall hear of this in the next week or so.
We have now got fairly clear the pattern of attack that we are to expect from hon. Members opposite. They begin by painting a picture of more or less unrelieved gloom about the British economy. They point—certainly we understand this, and, indeed, we share any feelings that they express—to the figures of unemployment, to industrial production, to prices, at which they throw up their hands in woe, and also to industrial unrest. But when we turn to these problems we find, as the Prime Minister replied to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday on the subject of industrial unrest, that their vision is curiously distorted and that when they had the power and authority themselves to tackle these problems they signally failed to make use of their opportunities. Having painted that picture of the economy, they then, of course, say that the Gracious Speech is "frivolously irrelevant"—I think that was the phrase—in dealing with the situation.
To us, of course, the Gracious Speech is a very different animal. It embodies the central aims of the Government and the measures which in this Session we intend to take to help achieve them. Those aims are, and have been since October, 1964, to secure a strong economy in Britain, to carry through our own social priorities, and in particular to allocate resources more generously to regions, to groups of the population and to those community services which have been denied resources for too long.
The point I wish to make as strongly as I can is that these two aims—a strong economy and getting our social priorities right—are complementary and not contradictory. My right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State made the point today that, by increasing the supply of housing, we were not only ending the misery of those without adequate housing but at the same time helping the mobility of


labour which is of considerable economic significance.
In addition to this, I would simply mention that the increases in social security payments—the old age pensions that are going up this week and the increase in family allowances mentioned in the Gracious Speech—are not only good in themselves but help to create that climate of opinion which makes an incomes and prices policy acceptable, because we on this side know that it is not only employment incomes we have to deal with but the whole category of social incomes, which are no less important.
I give another example. The hon. Lady objected to this discrimination, which to her has connotations of arbitrariness, but we know that discrimination in favour of some of the regions not only helps to deal with the problems of high unemployment in those regions but helps at the same time in the general management of the economy. The same argument applies to large categories of social expenditure. Community services, education and so forth are not only good in themselves but help to increase the competitive strength of Britain.
Our aims are a strong economy and, in the widest sense, the social priorities which in themselves add up to a strong economy, and the Gracious Speech concerns the means and strategy to achieve our aims. I want to say what our broad economic strategy is but first I want to say what it is not. We are not embarking upon—and I am not sure that hon. Members opposite would wish us to do so—on a general and unbridled reflation of demand in the British economy.
I see no sign of protest from the benches opposite, so I assume that the Opposition are generally content with the policies we are pursuing, because unless they argue that we should be operating generally on demand and stimulating a demand reflation in Britain, I do not know what they are objecting to in the rest of Government policy. I do not think that they are objecting to it and I want to make it perfectly plain that we are not embarking on a policy of general demand reflation.
This is because we know exactly what happened in 1962, when the Conservative Government did exactly that. In October and November, 1962, the right hon. Mem-

ber for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), then Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced a vast package of public expenditure increases. He slashed Purchase Tax on motor cars from 45 to 25 per cent. and increased enormously the allowances available to manufacturing industry to accelerate its investment. It was all very splendid. It did not make the slightest impact on the level of unemployment in the winter of 1962–63, but it certainly had an impact on the general inflationary boom that the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) so greatly fears. That took place late in 1963 and into 1964 and brought about the crisis and the disaster of that year which the party opposite did not restrain.
My charge against them on that occasion is not that it was too little and too late, but that what they did was too late and too much. One has to adopt a very different strategy, and the strategy that we are adopting is that of selective expansion. This does not mean that we shall ignore or are ignoring the general level of demand. We have already given certain evidence of this in our adjustments of important hire-purchase regulators and in the timing of the increases in certain social security benefits with which my right hon. and hon. Friends are familiar. We are not ignoring the general level of demand, but we are putting a particular emphasis on certain selective measures which we feel give us a much greater hope of success. The first of these are the measures that we have taken and are taking to keep investment in manufacturing industry at the highest possible level. Hon. Members opposite scoffed at my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State when he reported that investment this year in manufacturing industry had fallen by 6 per cent. The forecast for next year is roughly that we should be able to see no further decline. However, I would remind them that in 1962 investment in manufacturing industry fell by 8 per cent. and in 1963 by no less than 12 per cent.
The important question is: why has investment been holding up as well as it has during the past year and why do the present forecasts show or give us reason to look ahead with a certain amount of confidence? The answer is that we acted at the right time in the most direct and relevant way. Within


six months of the July measures, in December, 1966, we increased the investment grant to 25 per cent. generally and to 45 per cent. in the development areas. This increase in the investment grant was undoubtedly a very important stimulus. In addition, during the past six months we have brought forward the timing of payment of these grants, by successive reductions from 18 months to 15 months and from 15 months to 12 months.
When one thinks about the importance of investment and relates or connects it with the industrial expansion measure that the hon. Lady is so upset about, I find it very difficult to see why she should do anything but welcome a measure of this kind. One of the major purposes of the Industrial Expansion Bill will be to increase investment to make it possible for us not merely to avoid an admittedly unwelcome, but much more modest decline than they experienced, but to do better and to help stimulate the investment that we need. That is the first thing we are attempting to do.
The second thing—and I make very little of this, because I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour will have a great deal to say—is that we have been greatly stimulating the supply and quality of skilled labour through all the means open to us. I will say something further about this in the development area context, but this policy applies throughout the country.
The next thing that we have been doing is to try to give particular help to industries which, as a result of reports and examinations of various kinds, clearly need special help and special measures to overcome their difficulties. Does anyone doubt that the intervention that the hon. Lady so deplores which has taken place in the shipbuilding industry during the past year has been anything but beneficial in terms of the structure of that industry, in terms of employment within it, in terms of Britain's balance of payments through the earnings that we have been able to keep up or the loss, in terms of extra imports, we would otherwise have had to sustain?
There is no doubt that this has been possible only because of the measures which we have taken. While I do not wish to get involved in old-fashioned doctrinal argument with the hon. Lady,

when she exhorts me to look at inefficient management in the nationalised industries, which I am very ready to do, I advise her to do a little reading of some of the reports which have been written in the last few years about certain parts of private industry.

Mrs. Thatcher: I take up what the right hon. Gentleman has said about steel and shipbuilding. Am I right in thinking that one of the first actions of the nationalised steel industry was to reduce the steel discount to shipbuilders?

Mr. Shore: I doubt very much whether that is so and certainly I would not accept that just because the hon. Lady has said so, although, of course, I accept that she has made the point in good faith. On the contrary, I am aware of proposals for rebate which have been made by the new Steel Board. That is something which she and I can perhaps sort out between ourselves. I shall look at this at a later stage.
I was mentioning shipbuilding as one example of the kind of aid which the Government are giving to particular industries, and I have no doubt that it has been of great help. In my own more direct sphere we have in the I.R.C. an instrument which is growing in its range of activities and which has already brought off, particularly in the English Electric-Elliot Automation merger, a most successful operation which will greatly strengthen the British computer industry. The same sort of story can be told of many other industries, and in the Queen's Speech are proposals, which I will not seek to elaborate now, which are concerned with reorganising road and rail transport and with reorganising the Post Office on a new and more commercial basis.

Mr. Heffer: I am sorry to interrupt, but I want to ask one very important question. Many hon. Members on this side of the House and hon. Members opposite have made some important points during the debate and have asked certain questions. I am getting a little tired of Front Bench speakers replying to debates and yet never attempting to reply to the points made in the debates. Does my right hon. Friend intend to reply to any of the points which have been made?

Mr. Shore: Obviously, I shall reply to as many as I can, although there is a great deal of ground to cover. If my hon. Friend were fair-minded about this, I think that he would see that there are immense difficulties about covering the enormous area which hon. Members themselves have explored during the greater part of today.
I want to turn to one aspect of our policy which I know to be of great interest to many hon. Members and particularly to Scottish Members, a number of whom have spoken today. I refer now to our regional policy. My right hon. Friend the First Secretary has already outlined a great deal of what we are doing. The R.E.P. is extremely important and it is not just a project getting off the ground, but is already in action. It came into effect in September and the first payments began last month. In addition, during the past few weeks we have authorised a very heavy mini-work programme of some £24 million which has the considerable advantage that it is to be spent in the areas where it is most needed, and the greater part will be spent during this winter when it is most needed.
In addition to this, and I am surprised that this has not been noted by hon. Members, we have introduced a considerable increase in the weekly training grant to workers employed by new and expanding firms in development areas—an increase from £5 to £10 a week. I do not want to dwell for long on the major development area policy because I want to tell the House something about what one might call super development areas or special areas within those development areas.
The House will have gathered that the Government believe that the combined effect of those general regional measures will ensure that, despite the continuing run-down of basic industries, including coal, the economic prospects of the development areas as a whole will improve and the average level of unemployment fall to levels much nearer those in the rest of the country. There are, however, certain coalmining areas where general measures of assistance to the development areas as a whole are unlikely to be sufficient.
These are localities where male employment is at present overwhelmingly

dependent on coal mining, and which are in many cases situated at some distance from the main urban centres or from centres of new industrial development within the region, so that access to the newly developing industries in the development areas as a whole will not be easy. Expected colliery closures in these areas are likely to lead to very high levels of unemployment unless special action is taken. Not every isolated mining community can receive this special help, but where the numbers of people living and working in them are substantial, the Government recognise that they must have a reasonable assurance of their future prospects.
The Government have therefore decided to take further action to deal with the problems facing the localities that would be particularly hard hit by colliery closures. The coverage will include those localities where, unless further measures were applied, unemployment would be likely to rise to a very high level and persist for two or three years. We have made a preliminary selection of such areas from the information available, and I am now in touch with the regional planning councils concerned. The areas concerned will be announced when this consultation is complete.
New industrial estates are planned to serve these areas at selected sites in South Wales, Durham and Northumberland, and are under consideration for Scotland and Cumberland. These sites will be within travel-to-work distance of many of the colliery districts threatened with closure. So long as prospects of securing industry are reasonable there will be a continuing building programme of advance factories in these areas to replace those let.
The Government are also considering whether, and if so, in what form, additional incentives are required for industry moving into, or expanding, in these areas.
The Government are prepared to make extra funds available for improving the infrastructure of the affected areas and for other measures of assistance. The use of these additional funds requires further study to ensure that the localities derive the maximum benefit from them. But it could include such objects as improving the access to the area and clearing derelict land. Immediate steps are being taken to authorise additional expenditure on roads


in the affected areas in order to improve local travel-to-work opportunities.
As well as these special measures of assistance, we intend to set in hand a more searching and detailed study of the economic prospects and potential of these areas. This would include considering how the funds referred to above for improving infrastructure can best be used and the possibility of additional measures. The studies will be put in hand urgently through the Government's regional organisation and will draw on the advice of the regional councils and local authorities.
I hope that the House will forgive me for giving the text of that announcement, but I chink it is one of considerable importance and I hope it will be studied. I must move now to the third aspect of what one might call regional policy, because questions were put to me by a number of Members including the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) about what is Government policy in relation to a third category of area now known as the intermediate, or grey area, and which as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Hunt Committee was set up to study not long ago. I am afraid that I shall have to leave to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade a point about the future of the cotton textile industry, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred. He will study it with care.
We are looking at the problem of the intermediate areas. While I do not want to commit myself to taking any action, I should not like to say that because the Hunt Committee has been set up we are debarred from taking action until it has reported. But there are difficult problems of definition and of working out policy. I assure the House, however, that I am prepared to study the matter as thoroughly and as quickly as I can.
I have little time left for one part of the Gracious Speech with which I was most anxious to deal—the prices and incomes policy in the moderation phase which it entered in July. The Queen's

Speech rightly emphasises the need for an effective policy for prices and incomes. There is a wide range of acceptance of the need for an effective policy. One of the most important developments has been the institutional development within the T.U.C. during the past few months of setting up its own vetting committee, which is most certainly in action. I look on that as a most valuable practical reinforcement of the voluntary side of this policy.
I am quite happy with the hon. Lady's suggestion—we have adopted it—that we should refer the prices of nationalised industries to the Prices and Incomes Board. That is right. But I make the point that it will be my intention wherever it is equally appropriate to refer private industry, too. That is what we intend to do.
I would like to mention the development of the new productivity arrangements in the context of the prices and incomes policy. An enormous amount of work has gone into defining these concepts, and that of the lower paid. I believe that the policy has a greater chance of success in the coming year than perhaps it has had before.
To sum up our policy as embodied in the Queen's Speech, we are trying to get out of the difficulties which we have inherited. We did not create them, we inherited them. In particular, in our policies during the coming year we are aiming to prevent the three dreadful features of previous periods of stop in the economy—a collapse in investment, unacceptably high unemployment in the least fortunate regions and the cost-push of inflation—not the demand-pull—which makes our products uncompetitive. All the policies that I have mentioned—our regional policies, our prices and incomes policy and the measures which we have taken to sustain investment—are directly relevant to and bear upon these problems, which we intend to solve.

Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Gourlay.]

Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gourlay]

10.0 p.m.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: Every Scottish Member who worked in the constituencies this summer and has been around the country would agree that there is a very serious problem of worry and alarm among sections of the community about the satisfactory or unsatisfactory nature of the Scottish system of Government. I know that this subject has been raised time and again on the Floor of the House and many have, no doubt, like myself, given evidence to the Royal Commission on Local Government in Scotland. This is a very important body, and we shall have to think very carefully when it reports, but, in the interim, there is still this worry about whether our methods of Government in Scotland are, even at the moment, entirely adequate.
This has been raised before. Looking up the precedents for the proposals I intend to make, I noticed that I have the very proper antecedents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), who put down an identical Motion in 1948. Nevertheless, it is worth bringing it up again.
Some of my hon. Friends feel that this tide of worry about remote Government rises and falls inevitably and regularly, and that if we wait it will disappear again. In discussing this, they cite the most significant example, in 1948–49, when the Scottish Covenant Movement obtained 2 million signatures on a proposal for a kind of devolution. That movement then had a good deal of strength. It then died away and it is argued that, presumably, this will happen again.
This time, the situation is much more serious, for a number of reasons. The first is simply the passage of time and the fact that we have not been able to meet these criticisms. When the Conservative Government came to power on the last occasion, they appointed the Balfour Commission to investigate Scottish Gov

ernment, and it reported in 1954, saying this:
We find that an important source of discontent arises from ignorance of the existing machinery of government in Scotland … popular opinion should be better informed about the wide powers which the Secretary of State already possesses for dealing with the affairs of Scotland.
Since that was said in 1954, there has been even more administrative devolution. Not only do we have, as in 1954, health, education, housing and home affairs under the Secretary of State, but there was the extra devolution of trunk roads and the rise of economic planning under the control of the Scottish Development Department.
This is a mass of devolved administration. Indeed, I can think of only one area which could reasonably, within a United Kingdom framework, be further devolved, and that is the Board of Trade's powers to stimulate local industrial development, although it would be very difficult. Apart from this, I can see no further administrative function which we could safely, in a United Kingdom framework, devolve to the Secretary of State in St. Andrew's House.
This has been the case for 20 years, yet it can still be said, on Scottish Nationalist platforms, that we are ruled in a remote fashion from London. After all the work of those of us who have taught Scottish administration, of the journalists who have expounded and the hon. Members of both sides who have explained it at meeting after meeting, the fact that this is still the case suggests that it is not a failure of ours but a failure of machinery and communication at a much more serious level.
The second reason why I think that this matter is now more serious is that this is a particularly unfortunate juncture for Scottish energies to be turned aside from our own development to carping about what is, largely, a non-existent quarrel.
I was talking the other day to officials of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry about their work and they said that the really heartening thing was that for the first time the gap in investment which had existed for a long time between England and Scotland seemed to be disappearing, and that we now have development similar to that in the rest of the United Kingdom. I was


delighted to see that the Confederation of British Industry survey struck a similarly optimistic note in saying that private investment was holding up under the squeeze better in Scotland than in any other part of the United Kingdom. We also have now heard from the Secretary of State that there is a chance of a real halt in the emigration figures.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: A halt?

Mr. Mackintosh: That is what we have been told. I think there is some evidence of a new spirit in Scotland in industrial activity.
I think it would be very sad if the energies of our people were developed in raising political complaints instead of doing the things we want to do and which we can do when they are put into our own hands, and the machinery is available.
The third reason why I think this is particularly serious at the moment is that I think that in a sense there is truth in the complaint, some reality in the feeling, that however devolved our administration, Government nevertheless is in a sense remote, even if it is not remote geographically, and the reason for this is fairly clear, and that is that the Government, in response to popular demand, have been doing more and more. We have been creating bodies to carry out things desired by the electorate and often supported by both sides of the House, but many of those bodies are not under the control of elected representatives. I shall not weary the House by enumerating them all, but we have set up the Island and Highlands Development, Board, there is to be a Countryside Commission, we have amalgamated police forces and water authorities. I will not go through them all. I remember the last time I ran through them I listed 49 ad hoc bodies of one kind and another in Scotland, all doing a good job, and yet there is a feeling that they are remote and hard to control. The average citizen does not understand them.
I do not think that this feeling is peculiar to Scotland. I think it exists in Wales, too, and in all parts of England. It is the functioning of large-scale government. Because we in Scotland are a nation our objections take the form of

nationalism. Whereas in England identical forms of complaint, such as that of control over the siting of Stansted Airport, for instance, are only an anti-Government argument, anti-bureaucratic, the argument in Scotland about such a thing, had it happened there, would have contributed to Scottish nationalist feeling.
For these reasons I think we must take note of this. What then should we do? What proposals can we make in this House to meet the situation? I know that the traditional answer, the one we have always been given, time and time again, is that we have here a Scottish Grand Committee, a Parliament within Parliament, where, as well as on the Floor of the House, we can consider matters concerning Scotland. This argument fails to satisfy. I do not know how many hon. Members have used it, but I do not think any would have found that it produced a ready response, an enthusiastic acceptance from their audiences. I do not think it meets the case myself.
I think there are two reasons for this. One is that the Scottish Grand Committee, with all its merits, does not have enough time, and the second is that what we do is not sufficiently known and appreciated in Scotland.
On the first of those two points, the difficulty about the Scottish Grand Committee, I feel, is that though we take Second Readings of Bills, and though we have our six Estimate days debates, and although we have our subject days debates, all these are not very much when we consider the amount of authority the Secretary of State has, and when we have to discuss such various subjects as health, housing, education, agriculture, roads, fisheries, economic development—all these matters; and yet we have to cover them in this very limited time. This last summer I recall we had a debate on Scottish education for two and a half hours of which the Front Bench spokesmen took one hour and 35 miutes, and this meant that of the 40 back benchers present only four could contribute. That was all we had on the subject of Scottish education, and on Scottish agriculture we did not have a debate at all.
I know the stock answer to this is to say that the subjects are chosen by the Opposition and that if hon. Members would not speak for such a long time a


few more back benchers could get in, but I do not regard that as satisfactory, because whatever the subjects we choose, and however short our speeches, we would still only have six periods of two and a half hours with which to cope with a matter.

Mr. MacArthur: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member in the very interesting argument he is advancing, but in order to avoid worsening the process of communication, will he call attention to the fact that these are not the only times when these vital matters are considered by Parliament?

Mr. Mackintosh: I quite appreciate that. I appreciate that we have Adjournment debates and full-scale debates on some of these matters. Hon. Members opposite can choose a Supply Day, if they care, to discuss the Scottish economy and things of that kind. Nevertheless in the Scottish Grand Committee as a Parliament within a Parliament we do not have so long as I should like to have and an established and guaranteed time to discuss these topics. This is the weakness of the situation.
As to the difficulty of people understanding what we do, hon. Members will have seen various articles in the newspapers, especially a feature article last Monday in the Scotsman. It is a little tedious when one finds reasonably informed people writing articles referring to our sitting here as "inactive, dumb, spineless Members". I have heard many criticisms of English and Welsh hon. Members, but I have not heard them described as dumb or spineless. It seems that people do not know about the long morning sittings in Committee upstairs.
What is possible as an interim measure? I say "interim measure" because I reiterate that we must wait for the Royal Commission Report for a final solution. I am not proposing a final solution to the problem but an interim measure to add to understanding and to help to solve the problem. I suggest that we should take the Scottish Grand Committee to sit in Edinburgh for a week in each of the Recesses, the last week of January, a week in the Easter Recess and a week in the Whitsun Recess. If we did this it would be entirely possible for

us to open with a Scottish Question Time. We could then have a debate, for example in January, on a Second Reading. I appreciate that some Second Reading debates would have to come on early in the autumn, but others could take place in January, and we could have debates on the principle of Scottish Bills.
During the Easter Recess I should like us to have debates on some subjects we do not consider adequately in Scottish Grand Committee. I am thinking particularly of the Planning Council in Scotland, which is no doubt a very worthy body but people do not know what it is doing. Important decisions are being taken about the siting of new towns, roads, and the whole pattern of future development. Yet people have very little chance of finding what is happening and debating it so that intelligent public opinion may be created.
In the Whitsun Recess sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee we could have a fuller discussion of the Estimates which now we discuss in morning sittings of 2½ hours. It is important that this should be done in a Recess. I would be the last to want hon. Members from Scottish constituencies not to play their full part in this House in Scottish Questions. In a Recess we would get a tremendous amount of publicity. It would be very evident what we were doing and what the devolved powers of St. Andrews' House were.
I find it amazing that my argument does not appeal more to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland because I have so often witnessed his batting the ball back at Question Time and making mincemeat of hon. Members opposite. I am surprised that he is not happy to do this before the full gaze or blaze of Scottish publicity in Edinburgh.
What are the arguments against this solution? I heard one—I will mention no names—that if we had good administration, it does not matter about democratic control. This is the old colonial argument: "The natives are grumbling in the bazaars, but while the district officer is competent we need not bother." I do not agree with that kind of argument, and I think that we can dismiss it, although I have heard it advanced.
A much more important and serious argument, which I accept as genuine, is that this would be the slippery slope, the first step of a cataclysmic slide towards utter nationalism and total separation. In fact, I think that the reverse is true, and that is why I am particularly concerned to refute that argument. I believe that if we refuse to meet this demand to make Government less remote, if we say that everything is perfect and wag our fingers at the objectors, telling them that they are foolish and that they do not know the true situation, then we drive into the arms of the very small number of genuine nationalists the very large number of people who want to remain part of the United Kingdom but who are not entirely happy that everything is well with the present system of Government in Scotland.
We have evidence of that in the result of the Gallup polls in Scotland. We see that 70 per cent. of those who responded said that they wanted an elected body in Scotland to control purely Scottish matters. Only 18 per cent. said that they wanted the solution of total independence. I say quite frankly that I wish to drive a wedge between these two groups and to reassure the majority that our existing machinery of Government can be adapted to meet their needs so that, with the growth of a complex and elaborate Government machine, we can also foster the growth of an adequate system of democratic control to match it.
I regard the argument of total nationalism as utterly disastrous. The vast majority of nationalist speakers never try to make that argument. They go on complaints and moans, which we could answer if we had the time and if they could see us at work in the Grand Committee. They do not normally argue for total independence. I do not want to say anything which might be calculated as insulting to our friends the Southern Irish Nationalists. I supported their demands up to 1922, as will be seen, in a retrospective sort of way, but the facts show that the objectives which they had have not been adequately met. Capital development in Southern Ireland has been very poor, the standard of living is far below that in this country, the heavy emigration has not been solved and 800,000 Irish citizens have poured out of Ireland to live in this country. None of

the problems which the Scottish Nationalists are pointing out was solved by self-government in Southern Ireland. We want to separate the people who basically are United Kingdom in outlook, who represent the vast majority of Scots, by saying that we have a positive, clear-cut answer to their problems and by inviting them to come away from the very small number of people who are separatists.
When canvassing recently I encountered a lady who told me that in future she would vote for the Scottish Nationalists. When I asked her why, she said that it was because her council house rent had risen. I pointed out delicately to her that the Scottish subsidy per head was £28 13s. 5d. and that the English subsidy was £15 6s. 4d. I asked whether she realised that not only was she subsidised by other people in her own community but she was subsidised by the English taxpayer, and this was news to her. Yet, as hon. Members know, we have bandied it about continually in our own debates. She is the kind of curious person who is voting nationalist for a negative, backward-looking solution because she is not adequately informed about what we are doing.
I appreciate that this is not a perfect solution and that it would cause great inconvenience. It is, however, a serious problem, if we wish to adapt our democratic machinery so as to convince our electors that what we are doing has a point, that they can participate, that they know whom they can tackle and that within the framework of the United Kingdom we are meeting our needs.

10.20 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) for the opportunity of a debate—be it noted, outside the Scottish Grand Committee—in which we can discuss a subject which is of concern to Members of the House of Commons and to people in Scotland. I am glad that my hon. Friend made it clear that he shares with others a certain impatience at the pretty naive belief prevalent in some quarters that a solution to all of Scotland's social and economic problems can be found in some kind of constitutional legerdemain. It is not quite as simple as that.
My hon. Friend has studied the matter of devolution. He has never discussed it with me. I noticed that he attributed certain things to me, to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling-shire (Mr. Woodburn), and to Tom Fraser. The Scottish Grand Committee was established in 1907 by the then Liberal Government. It dealt purely with matters of the Committee work on Scottish Bills until 1948, when my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling-shire, himself a Secretary of State, instituted the six Supply Days and also the possibility of the Committee taking the Second Readings of Scottish Bills. The Scottish Grand Committee became what the Royal Commission called a microcosm of Parliament, a forum for Scottish debates and for Scottish opinions.
In 1957 a change was made in it by, I think it was, Lord Muirshiel, as he now is, when two additional days were given. This followed a Report by the Select Committee on Procedure, to which a memorandum was submitted by two Scottish Members asking for other items for the Scottish Grand Committee. One of those Members was my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), and modesty forbids me from mentioning the name of the other Member. This suggestion was accepted by the Select Committee on Procedure, was accepted by the House, and was introduced.
Further, the Scottish Grand Committee ceased to exist for Committee purposes and the right of all Scottish Members, which had existed till that time, to be on for Committees was reduced and we got the smaller Committee. Another important change which was made was the introduction—I think it was the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) who first introduced it in 1963—of another Standing Committee to enable us to deal with non-controversial Bills, mainly Private Members' Bills.
The result of this is that Scottish Members have more time to discuss their affairs than English Members have. It means that Scottish Members and Scottish administration get more Bills through relatively than the other administrations. It means, too, that the Private Scottish Member has more opportunity, having commended a Private Member's Bill on

Second Reading, of getting it on to the Statute Book. I can remember the Committee, I think it was in the year before last, dealing with four or five separate Private Members' Bills on the one forenoon.
I am sorry that the people of Scotland do not know—it is not for me to say whose fault it is—that Scottish Members are the hardest worked and the hardest working in Parliament. Last Session the Scottish Standing Committees and the Scottish Grand Committee sat on 71 days dealing with purely Scottish matters. We had, in addition, all the Report stages in the House, additionally with the opportunity of raising debates of the type of tonight's debate. Additionally, we had our share in the major debates in the House. The only time we discussed agriculture was not in Scottish Standing Committee. It was discussed here in at least two major debates. I can remember it because I wound them both up. I can remember Scottish Members discussing these things and playing their part within the United Kingdom.
There is nothing new here under the sun. [Interruption.] As I am reminded, there is also participation in other committees. I can tell the House where the Scottish Ministers were. Scottish Ministers spread themselves not only over these 11 Government Bills and two or three Private Members' Bills in the last session, but they were represented on the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill because of our Departmental interest in it, the Agriculture Bill, the Civic Amenities Bill and the Land Commission Bill. Scottish Members played their part in all of those. There were, indeed, others as well.
I have always been and still will be anxious to make government less remote. It is not just a problem of national government. It is a problem also of local government, and there are people within burghs and cities in Scotland who will say exactly the same thing.
We are in the course of modernising Parliament. I do not think Parliament and the structure of Parliament will remain the same. With this changing structure and the new responsibilities which will come to Parliament, it may well be that we shall have a structure that will give us the possibility of doing these things. But I do not think we want Scotland's


voice and opinions to be lost in the major Assembly. The people of Scotland would not want them to be lost within the major assembly, in the same way as Scottish Members—I have been one of them—felt that whilst we got advantages from the development of the Scottish Grand Committee, we did not want to lose the right to speak here. Let this be recognised.
On the actual proposals which my hon. Friend has made, I would welcome it because it would enable me to be in Scotland longer and more often. Probably it would suit me better than it would suit any of the back bench Members. I did not notice any great flush of enthusiasm from the House when my hon. Friend suggested that the Scottish Grand Committee should meet during the recesses. A fortnight during the Whitsun Recess would mean no recess at all. Not only has this been put forward before; it has been tried before. It was tried by Tom Johnston in 1941. He got such a poor response that it was never tried again. It was put forward by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State in a letter to Sir Winston Churchill during the war and it was turned down then. It was put forward to the Royal Commission and was turned down.
I am not going to turn it down out of hand, but I ought to say this. When it was considered in relation to meeting at the same time as Parliament was meeting, it broke down on practicalities in

that Members cannot be in two places at once Sometimes Members serve on two Committees on the same morning because they want to play their full part on behalf of Scotland in United Kingdom legislation. But I was thinking it would have been better if the proposal had been that we should meet in Edinburgh this week. I should like to see the possibility of the further examination of this problem. I would love to have been able to make a speech this week showing how well we are doing in Scotland, the progress that we are making with roads and housing, improvements of which the C.B.I. and others seem to be conscious, and giving a sort of state of the nation speech at this time of the year.
Can it be done? I do not know, but I think this is the kind of thing which Scottish Members of Parliament and the House of Commons could usefully discuss. I think my hon. Friend's point about the Recess is a bad one. We shall be going into the Scottish Grand Committee fairly soon on the Teachers' Superannuation Bill. We cannot go into Committee until we have had a Second Reading——

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.